California High Speed Rail Thread

[Lipani]

^ The same situation would exist here if HSR was planned to go along the coast with Amtrak/Coaster/Metrolink. Nimbys from La Jolla to Irvine would go out of their way to kill it.

[pesto]

It would be interesting to have a new statewide vote on HSR, with the new cost estimates and estimated prices for travel and proposals to build-out the Central Valley first. A big victory could pretty well silence the critics.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by pesto

It would be interesting to have a new statewide vote on HSR, with the new cost estimates and estimated prices for travel and proposals to build-out the Central Valley first. A big victory could pretty well silence the critics.

Why would a new referendum silence the critics when the last one didn't?

[202_Cyclist]

I support high speed rail and I think it is an important transportation project for the state but this trip seems a little tone-deaf after the tragic crash last month in China.

California lawmakers travel to China to study high-speed rail

Los Angeles Times
By Patrick McGreevy
8/1/2011

"A group of state lawmakers has flown to China to see if California can learn anything from that country about building a high-speed rail system.

But the lesson may be about what not to do: the state senators are arriving in a country mourning an accident last month in which two Chinese bullet trains collided, killing at least 39 people and injuring 200.

The delegation includes Democrats Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles, Ron Calderon of Montebello and Lou Correa of Santa Ana and is being paid for by the Chinese Ministry of Railways..."

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I support high speed rail and I think it is an important transportation project for the state but this trip seems a little tone-deaf after the tragic crash last month in China.

California lawmakers travel to China to study high-speed rail

Los Angeles Times
By Patrick McGreevy
8/1/2011

"A group of state lawmakers has flown to China to see if California can learn anything from that country about building a high-speed rail system.

But the lesson may be about what not to do: the state senators are arriving in a country mourning an accident last month in which two Chinese bullet trains collided, killing at least 39 people and injuring 200.

The delegation includes Democrats Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles, Ron Calderon of Montebello and Lou Correa of Santa Ana and is being paid for by the Chinese Ministry of Railways..."

For HSR safety and reliability, no one comes close to touching the Shinkansen; only one derailment of passenger trains in its entire history due to an earthquake (no one died). Even countries like Germany have not had as much success on the safety front with their rail. We should look to Japan (for trains, not for advice on nuclear reactor safety).

[202_Cyclist]

The great high-speed rail lie


France's TGV takes two hours, 38 minutes to travel 430 miles. (Image courtesy of the SF Chronicle)

Roger Christensen
San Francisco Chronicle
August 3, 2011

"In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond to begin construction of a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco that would make that trip in less than three hours. So who knew that by 2011 the general consensus would be that the project is an ill-conceived, mismanaged boondoggle?

Former Amtrak spokesman and Reason Foundation writer Joseph Vranich knew. In 2008, before the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, he called the project "science fiction." He said the train won't travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours because that exceeds the speed of all existing high-speed rail..."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDTD1KID15.DTL

[bvpcvm]

^^^ As must as I'd like to see CAHSR come to fruition, this guy's statement that the distance from SFO to LA is the same as Paris to Lyon - "430 miles" apart just doesn't sound right. In fact, according to Google Maps, by road, it's 466 *kilometers*. That's about 280 miles.

Having said that, 432 miles (SFO to LA) / 3 hours = 144 mph (not counting time for stops, acceleration, etc), which doesn't sound too out of line.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

^^^ As must as I'd like to see CAHSR come to fruition, this guy's statement that the distance from SFO to LA is the same as Paris to Lyon - "430 miles" apart just doesn't sound right. In fact, according to Google Maps, by road, it's 466 *kilometers*. That's about 280 miles.

Having said that, 432 miles (SFO to LA) / 3 hours = 144 mph (not counting time for stops, acceleration, etc), which doesn't sound too out of line.

You misread, he said Paris to Avignon, which according to Google Maps is 430 miles. CA HSR probably does have a good chance of ending up a milquetoast effort, just like any public infrastructure project in this country, due to being hamstrung from the beginning by the NIMBY and anti-public anything conservative agenda.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

You misread, he said Paris to Avignon, which according to Google Maps is 430 miles. CA HSR probably does have a good chance of ending up a milquetoast effort, just like any public infrastructure project in this country, due to being hamstrung from the beginning by the NIMBY and anti-public anything conservative agenda.

Over the last 10 to 20 years the US, IMO, has lost it's sense of being able to get much done besides talking about things, getting involved in wars, and creating movie special effects.

I am afraid that the change in transportation mode will only happen when many millions more walk the streets without work, and, car driving in the US will be exorbitantly expensive for the bottom 75% of the population.

When this happens, and I strongly believe that it will, those who have manufactured so many road blocks for steel rail passenger travel will:

A) Say "There is a Need for public transportation...and I am glad I thought of it."

and

B) Say "Let bygones be bygones...after all, we ALL did not want fast rail service and our not having HSR now is our collective fault."

Of course, there might be a half a million slow traveling buses on pothole and buckled pavement surface highways instead, in 2030-40.

[202_Cyclist]

Where was the concern from farmers when I-5 or Highway 99 used thousands of acres of agriculture land? Similarly, auto-dependent sprawl from the Bay Area has also taken away thousands or tens of thousands of acres of farm land but there hasn't been this concern from farmers.


Rail plan, landowners to collide


By Tim Sheehan
Aug. 7, 2011
Sacramento Bee

"About 1,100 pieces of property – farms, businesses and homes – lie along the potential routes for California's high-speed trains between Madera and Shafter, where construction is planned to begin in late 2012.

Within the next week or so, the California High-Speed Rail Authority will begin looking for companies to negotiate with property owners and seal the deals on rights of way for the first 120 miles or so of tracks in the San Joaquin Valley. It's a contract that could be worth up to $40 million."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/07/382...ate%20Politics

[ElDuderino]

Caltrain could share tracks with high-speed rail

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, August 18, 2011

A beefed-up Caltrain service and a slimmed-down high-speed rail system could run between San Francisco and San Jose by sharing the existing rails, plus just a few miles of new passing tracks, Caltrain officials said Wednesday.

The preliminary findings of Caltrain's long-awaited capacity study, released to a group of San Mateo County city officials, lend support to what is being called a blended system, proposed by a group of Peninsula lawmakers. Containing the high-speed trains largely within the Caltrain right of way and avoiding extensive new construction, the plan has the potential to blunt much of the opposition to high-speed rail on the Peninsula, reduce costs, and modernize the Caltrain system.

"There's a lot of potential benefits here," said Seamus Murphy, government affairs manager for Caltrain. "This gives us a good path forward to work with the (California High-Speed Rail) authority and move forward with this approach."

Roelof van Ark, chief executive officer of the rail authority, said that while the results are preliminary, they show that it could be possible to build a lower-cost, lower-impact route up the Peninsula as the first phase of the ultimate system. He said he will meet soon with officials from Caltrain and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is trying to get high-speed rail back on track in the Bay Area. Last month, the authority halted its studies of the San Francisco-San Jose segment, citing uncertainty of what the region wanted.

"This is a good step toward getting high-speed rail going in the Peninsula," he said.

The biggest potential obstacle to sharing the Caltrain tracks has been uncertainty about whether the system has the capacity to support the commuter railroad, which hopes to run more frequent service, and the high-speed rail system, which had plans to run as many as 12 trains an hour.

Preliminary results of the Caltrain analysis, conducted by LTK Engineering, show that the system, with the addition of a four-track segment roughly 8 miles long to allow high-speed trains to pass slower commuter trains making more frequent stops, could handle up to 10 trains per hour. That would allow Caltrain to run six commuter trains per hour during peak times, and accommodate as many as four high-speed rail trains.

The computer model used in the capacity analysis assumed that Caltrain - which would be electrified and use lighter, faster rail cars and an advanced signal system - would run at 79 mph while high-speed trains could travel at speeds up to 110 mph. That would allow every Caltrain, making 13 or 14 stops, to travel between San Francisco and San Jose in an hour or less - times now achieved only by the limited-stop Baby Bullet express trains. High-speed trains would make the trip in 30 to 35 minutes, with one stop in San Bruno.

Marian Lee, acting director of the Caltrain modernization program, said consultants will conduct a second run of the model before completing the analysis. The railroad presented its early findings to the San Mateo County Rail Corridor Partnership because of the intense interest, and equally intense criticism of high-speed rail planning on the Peninsula. Lee acknowledged that major elements of the plan are sure to be controversial, including the design and location of the passing track sections, and how to deal with the 50 grade crossings along the Caltrain right of way.

Van Ark said the shared-track plan would still be expensive and require substantial construction. It is still unclear whether it will meet the requirements of Proposition 1A, the state high-speed rail bond, and state environmental laws, he said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1VOgGFXpO

[ltsmotorsport]

Hey, whatever gets it built. I could see though after everything is up and running that maybe HSR would need to expand capacity soon because of overcrowded trains. SF is one of the main attractions for HSR after all.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by pesto

It would be interesting to have a new statewide vote on HSR, with the new cost estimates and estimated prices for travel and proposals to build-out the Central Valley first. A big victory could pretty well silence the critics.

I dont think it would win if we had to vote again.

I myself feel misled by the CASHR group with regards to cost estimates, ticket price estimates, ridership estimates and so on.

I only held on because of my desire for the CAHSR to be a major part of the new Transbay Termina project, which is a worthy endeavor, but now Im not so sure about CAHSR.

[202_Cyclist]

dimondpark:

I only held on because of my desire for the CAHSR to be a major part of the new Transbay Termina project, which is a worthy endeavor, but now Im not so sure about CAHSR.

In all fairness, this is perhaps the least important reason to support high speed rail in CA. Here are some other reasons:

1) The US consumes 19M barrels of oil per day, approximately 1/4 of the world's total consumption. Passenger vehicles are responsible for about 60% of this consumption. Every year, America spends over $300B on foreign oil, much of it coming from petro-dictators hostile to the US and unstable regions. Electrified high speed rail will reduce our consumption of oil.
2) Electrified high speed rail, with a significant amount of the energy coming from renewable sources will improve air quality. I think the Central Valley currently has the nation's worst air quality. In contrast to high speed rail, people living within 100 meters of freeways in CA are twice as likely to get hardening of the arteries than other people: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...on14-2010feb14.
3) The alternative to high speed rail isn't not spending anything. A few years ago, the CA Dept. of Finance estimated that CA's population will increase to 60M by 2050. We're going to have to invest in more infrastructure to accommodate all of these people. The cost of widening I-5 in SD County, alone, is estimated to cost between $3.3B - $4.5B. LAX's ongoing modernization costs approximately $5B. Sacramento's recent airport improvements cost $1.2. Upgrading Hwy 99 in the Central Valley to interstate standards is estimated to cost $25B.
4) High speed rail will give people an alternative to highway congestion. Every year, the Texas Transportation Institute finds that LA/OC highways are the nation's most congested, with motorists losing about 70 additional hours each year stuck in congestion. I think Riverside/San Bernardino is second and the Bay Area is either third or fourth. This extra time spent in congestion each year has an opportunity cost of tens of billions of dollars every single year that people can't be doing other, more valuable activities, not to mention the extra fuel consumption and air pollution.
5) High speed rail is one of the safest modes of transportation and certainly the safest mode of surface transportation. Since Japan's Shinkansen opened in 1965, there has not been one fatality on Japan's high speed rail network. There are 35,000 auto fatalities every single year. In addition to the tragic human cost, the economic cost of this is estimated to be $160B every single year.
6) CA's airports are congested. SFO is continually one of the top 2-3 most congested airports: http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_.../table_04.html . One recent report found that aviation delays cost the US economy and passengers nearly $40B each year. High speed rail will help reduce delays at CA's crowded airports. SH&E, a very well-respected consulting firm, estimates that up to 12% of San Jose's passengers can be diverted to high speed rail, and I think 6% at SFO.
7) High speed rail will encourage billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars of dense infill development around the stations.
8) High speed rail will create much-needed good-paying construction and engineering jobs when unemployment is 11.5% in CA.
9) High speed rail will help connect the Central Valley, where unemployment is highest and housing is most affordable, with the rest of the state: http://www.sjvpartnership.org/upload...esentation.pdf There are already extensive plans (google Elizabeth Deakin) for redeveloping Fresno's downtown into dense, walkable development in the expectation of high speed rail.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

dimondpark:
In all fairness, this is perhaps the least important reason to support high speed rail in CA.

I know, but that was the main thing keeping me on board. Now Im pretty sure Id vote against it.

1) The US consumes 19M barrels of oil per day, approximately 1/4 of the world's total consumption. Passenger vehicles are responsible for about 60% of this consumption. Every year, America spends over $300B on foreign oil, much of it coming from petro-dictators hostile to the US and unstable regions. Electrified high speed rail will reduce our consumption of oil.

I dont agree that a HSR will reduce oil consumption that much in California to be honest.

2) Electrified high speed rail, with a significant amount of the energy coming from renewable sources will improve air quality. I think the Central Valley currently has the nation's worst air quality.

Building a HSR in the Central Valley will only invite more sprawl. Merced and Modesto which already have a number of people commuting this way, will undoudtedly become bedroom communities of the Bay Area.

In contrast to high speed rail, people living within 100 meters of freeways in CA are twice as likely to get hardening of the arteries than other people: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...on14-2010feb14.

Which is why I support developing alternative fuels that are cleaner.

3) The alternative to high speed rail isn't not spending anything. A few years ago, the CA Dept. of Finance estimated that CA's population will increase to 60M by 2050. We're going to have to invest in more infrastructure to accommodate all of these people. The cost of widening I-5 in SD County, alone, is estimated to cost between $3.3B - $4.5B. LAX's ongoing modernization costs approximately $5B. Sacramento's recent airport improvements cost $1.2. Upgrading Hwy 99 in the Central Valley to interstate standards is estimated to cost $25B.

With $43 Billion(what the HSR is now estimated to cost), we could modernize all our bridges and freeways, all our airports, all our seaports and expand existing public transit options.

4) High speed rail will give people an alternative to highway congestion. Every year, the Texas Transportation Institute finds that LA/OC highways are the nation's most congested, with motorists losing about 70 additional hours each year stuck in congestion.I think Riverside/San Bernardino is second and the Bay Area is either third or fourth. This extra time spent in congestion each year has an opportunity cost of tens of billions of dollars every single year that people can't be doing other, more valuable activities, not to mention the extra fuel consumption and air pollution.

I have seen no evidence proving that a CAHSR will alleviate intra-state highway congestion between San Francisco and Los Angeles because its not that bad as it is.

If anything, your comment really emphasizes the importance of individual regions needing money to improve traffic congestion more than a statewide high speed rail.

We have 2 distinct megalopolises that are hundreds of miles apart, which exist independent of each other aside from the flow of commerce on I-5 and through the ports and airports.


I would rather we gave $21.5 Billion to each region that they can use to improve their respective transportation needs than to spend $43 Billion on a bullet train that will be yet another heavily subsidized, underutilized agency.

btw, Im a fan of HSRs, but not here at this time. I think the Northeast and Florida are the best places for that because you have major population centers in much closer proximity.

Perhaps an Intra-SoCal HSR is best? For NorCal Id rather see BART expanded to San Jose on both sides of the Bay---that would be 100 times better for helping traffic congestion than an HSR. Expanding BART into the North Bay is something else on my list of dream transit projects and $20 BILLION could cetainly go a long way to accomplish that.

Lastly with respect to money, Bill Lockyer, California State Treasurer recently stated that the state still has the option of cancelling the voter approved $9B(which has not been issued yet) if the state govt decides to end the project.

5) High speed rail is one of the safest modes of transportation

So is flying and California is one of the busiest air travel corridors on the face of the earth.

6) CA's airports are congested. SFO is continually one of the top 2-3 most congested airports: http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_.../table_04.html . One recent report found that aviation delays cost the US economy and passengers nearly $40B each year. High speed rail will help reduce delays at CA's crowded airports. SH&E, a very well-respected consulting firm, estimates that up to 12% of San Jose's passengers can be diverted to high speed rail, and I think 6% at SFO.

Most California Airports are still below their historic high passenger volumes.

Your point simply proves to me that this is yet another capital improvement that should take precedence to a HSR.

7) High speed rail will encourage billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars of dense infill development around the stations.

Like I said, it will also create sprawl in the valley and we need that like we need a tumor. Sure one or both parents will travel to work in the Bay Area but they will live in a suburban house with several cars and be totally auto dependent aside from their trip to work: See BART in most of the East Bay. Only with HSR we move that sprawl 100+ miles from the City.

8) High speed rail will create much-needed good-paying construction and engineering jobs when unemployment is 11.5% in CA.

$43 Billion could create high paying jobs in many several projects that are far more meaningful imo.

9) High speed rail will help connect the Central Valley, where unemployment is highest and housing is most affordable, with the rest of the state: http://www.sjvpartnership.org/upload...esentation.pdf There are already extensive plans (google Elizabeth Deakin) for redeveloping Fresno's downtown into dense, walkable development in the expectation of high speed rail.

Hundreds of Thousands if not Millions of Acres of Farmland are on the chopping block as far as Im concerned.

California grows 50% of the nation's produce.
Olives 100% of US Total
Almonds 99% of US Total
Artichokes 99% of US Total
Figs 99% of US Total
Walnuts 99% of US Total
Kiwi 97% of US Total
Celery 95% of US Total
Tomatoes(Processing) 95% of US Total
Nectarines 95% of US Total
Plums 95% of US Total
Broccoli 93% of US Total
Strawberries(Processing) 93% of US Total
Apricots 92% of US Total
Avocados 90% of US Total
Leaf Lettuce 90% of US Total
Grapes 89% of US Total
Cauliflower 86% of US Total
Fresh Market Strawberries 86% of US Total
Garlic 86% of US Total
Lemons 86% of US Total
Peaches 86% of US Total
Fresh Market Spinach 83% of US Total
Romaine Lettuce 83% of US Total
Dates 82% of US Total
Head Lettuce 76% of US Total
Honeydew Melons 72% of US Total
Carrots 66% of US Total
Spinach(Processing) 63% of US Total
Raspberries 61% of US Total
Canteloupe 55% of US Total
Asparagus 52% of US Total
Bell Peppers 48% of US Total
Chili Peppers 43% of US Total
Onions 38% of US Total
Tangerines 37% of US Total
Navel Oranges 34% of US Total
Fresh Market Tomatos 33% of US Total
Pears 28% of US Total
Cherries 27% of US Total
All Oranges 26% of US Total
Cabbage 22% of US Total
Agaricus Mushrooms 20% of US Total
Squash 19% of US Total
Corn 16% of US Total
Watermelons 16% of US Total
Valencia Oranges 15% of US Total
Beans 11% of US Total
Pumpkins 11% of US Total
Cucumbers 10% of US Total
Grapefruits 10% of US Total
Apples 4% of US Total
Blueberries 6% of US Total
Boysenberries 3% of US Total
Pecans 1% of US Total

Preserving our Agriculture is more important to me than turning Merced into a TOD.

With all due respect.

[Gordo]

^Seems like the policy that would ease your concerns more than any would simply be to massively upzone currently urbanized areas.

If we were simply looking at a pile of cash and the best way to invest that cash in transportation infrastructure, I'd use it all for intra-region upgrades IF AND ONLY IF massive upzones came with those upgrades. BART around the Bay? Great - if that comes with 20-30 story (at least) towers around the stations like the Washington Metro (or at least the zoning allowing those towers). Under no circumstance should we be building BART around the Bay to serve park-and-ride lots and suburban low rises in Menlo Park. I kind of consider the money set aside for HSR to be for a different purpose though - and I strongly disagree with the notion that $43 billion would be enough to modernize all of the currently existing freeways, bridges, airports, etc. Have you seen the cost of the new Bay Bridge?

If we're looking to preserve agriculture, we should, well, preserve agriculture. That can be done by fiat, or potentially by some other ways like land or development swaps - ie farmer exchanges rights to ever develop his land as anything other than farms in exchange for ten stories of height increase for five acres of urban land. He can then either buy urban land himself and build something using those rights - or he can sell those rights to someone who already owns the land. This type of thing would obviously require some kind of state-level law and/or counties working together and preferably would be set up through some type of clearinghouse with standardized terms. Another way would simply be to establish urban growth boundaries and remove almost all zoning restrictions within those boundaries while simultaneously removing almost all development rights outside of those boundaries and paying off the farmers for that loss of rights.

I vehemently disagree that the best way to retain farmland is simply to keep the Central Valley disconnected from the coasts and/or economically depressed.

And as I've mentioned several times in this thread, I would much prefer that the whole thing be mostly privately financed - but with the state using its power to establish the route. Eminent domain the route, remove legal hurdles and vetoes, and let the dollars flow in (as we've seen with toll highways in Southern CA). No investor in their right mind is going to invest with the state pussyfooting around folks trying to derail the route. Investors need certainty - none of the canals and railroads of the past would have been built by private investors if they knew that the state/feds didn't have their back in legal disputes.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^Seems like the policy that would ease your concerns more than any would simply be to massively upzone currently urbanized areas.

Probably.

If we were simply looking at a pile of cash and the best way to invest that cash in transportation infrastructure, I'd use it all for intra-region upgrades IF AND ONLY IF massive upzones came with those upgrades. BART around the Bay? Great - if that comes with 20-30 story (at least) towers around the stations like the Washington Metro (or at least the zoning allowing those towers).

Yes, DC-like transit areas would be ideal, and Im not going to be hurt if we dont totally ring the entire bay, but definitey to San Jose from both sides imo would be excellent.

Under no circumstance should we be building BART around the Bay to serve park-and-ride lots and suburban low rises in Menlo Park.

Agreed, but I still think that would be a more worthwhile investment than a bullet train to LA.

I kind of consider the money set aside for HSR to be for a different purpose though - and I strongly disagree with the notion that $43 billion would be enough to modernize all of the currently existing freeways, bridges, airports, etc. Have you seen the cost of the new Bay Bridge?

Yeah, I suppose your right as far as the total cost of modernizing and expanding everything for $43 Billion.

But $43 Billion on a bullet train imHO seems highly unwise at a time when that massive sum of money I feel could be better spent elsewhere.

If we're looking to preserve agriculture, we should, well, preserve agriculture. That can be done by fiat, or potentially by some other ways like land or development swaps - ie farmer exchanges rights to ever develop his land as anything other than farms in exchange for ten stories of height increase for five acres of urban land. He can then either buy urban land himself and build something using those rights - or he can sell those rights to someone who already owns the land. This type of thing would obviously require some kind of state-level law and/or counties working together and preferably would be set up through some type of clearinghouse with standardized terms. Another way would simply be to establish urban growth boundaries and remove almost all zoning restrictions within those boundaries while simultaneously removing almost all development rights outside of those boundaries and paying off the farmers for that loss of rights.

I vehemently disagree that the best way to retain farmland is simply to keep the Central Valley disconnected from the coasts and/or economically depressed.

Yeah, no one wants the Central Valley to remain economically depressed, but linking commuters to the coast via bullet trains certainly does open up those far out places to homebuyers fleeing the coast in favor of cheaper homes inland, and that creates all sorts of new problems imo.

And as I've mentioned several times in this thread, I would much prefer that the whole thing be mostly privately financed - but with the state using its power to establish the route. Eminent domain the route, remove legal hurdles and vetoes, and let the dollars flow in (as we've seen with toll highways in Southern CA). No investor in their right mind is going to invest with the state pussyfooting around folks trying to derail the route. Investors need certainty - none of the canals and railroads of the past would have been built by private investors if they knew that the state/feds didn't have their back in legal disputes.

Nothing to argue with here.

[Gordo]

My argument for CAHSR now rather than simply expanding roads/airports/etc is that capital costs for big projects are projected to continue going up in real terms, so if we think that we'll eventually want a HSR line in California, it's cheaper (in real terms) to build it as soon as possible. Things like establishing ROW, digging tunnels, etc only really have to be done completely once. Refurbishing a road isn't nearly as capital intensive as digging a tunnel through mountains.

So...unless we think that we're going to begin removing environmental regulations (rather than slowly adding more) or find a way to make concrete cheaper (again, in real terms), we should do every big project as soon as possible. I would advocate the same for some large water projects needed, some new or replacement bridges, more fixed line transit, etc. Now is especially a good time, because while these projects are not particularly labor intensive, they do still require a decent amount of labor - and labor is cheap now compared to a few years ago, or compared to some later time when unemployment is back down at reasonable levels. (and that's an argument for doing more of the road refurbishment now as well)

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Gordo

If we're looking to preserve agriculture, we should, well, preserve agriculture. That can be done by fiat, or potentially by some other ways like land or development swaps - ie farmer exchanges rights to ever develop his land as anything other than farms in exchange for ten stories of height increase for five acres of urban land..

If you guys need to preserve agricultural land, look to your neighbor to the North. Cali could learn something from us.

[DJM19]

Lets be clear: the option was never HSR or nothing. HSR is the alternative to spending even more money on other infrastructure related to the movement of PEOPLE across the same area.