Wasting money on a grand scale is a holy cause for liberals, I see. This will never make a profit, which is a good thing, because profit is theft for lefties.
Say, why are there TWO lines from the SF area to the valley - one from Morgan Hill east and another from Gilroy east? Two Congressional districts? Multiple politicians to pay off?
Why are there TWO lines from Bakersfield to Sylmar - one straight, the other lopping out east and going down to Palmdale? Someone else to pay off?
Why are there TWO routes from LA to San Diego? Because that will drive up the cost by billions more?
Since it won't be as fast or cheap as air, who will ride the toy train?
Here's some more funny stuff:
•Because the electric power to the trains can be produced by sustainable and renewable power sources like wind and solar, this system will cut air pollution and smog throughout California.
No, it won't run on wind or solar. Are the trains only going to run during daylight hours? Will the toy train stop when the wind stops blowing? The electric toy train will run on coal power from states to the east of CA cause you can't really build any new power plants in CA .... not even solar or wind.
•Improved energy efficiency: high-speed rail uses only one-third the energy of airplanes and one-fifth the energy of the family car1
Thats only if the trains were full. Unfortunately, the trains will run even if almost no one rides them. Cars only move when people use them. And airlines can match the planes to the traffic requirements.
•Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 12 billion pounds less per year3
More ghg cause the toy trains will run mostly on coal power. Solar and wind won't work, even if the greens would let you build power plants.
Hey, I figured out why they're building the first part of the CA high speed rail out in the boondocks from Borden to Corcoran. Its because thats the only place Californians will let a rail line be built:
Historic tree stands in the way of Palo Alto high-speed rail
By Doug Ray | 19 Nov 2010
Towering 10 stories above the banks of San Francisquito Creek, the El Palo Alto redwood predates the U.S. Constitution by more than 800 years. It is widely believed to have been a campsite for explorer Gaspar de Portola when he discovered San Francisco Bay in 1769.
It has endured everything from ecological changes to economic shifts, all of which left marks on the ecology of this venerable tree. Now it’s entangled in the debate over high-speed rail.
The tree stands within 10 feet of existing Caltrain tracks between the Menlo Park and Palo Alto stations, with commuter trains passing by 90 times every weekday. Initial plans by the California High-Speed Rail Authority called for widening the tracks to accommodate the new rail line, which would put the tree in jeopardy. Proposed alternatives included a trench or raised track.
penipress.com
Palo Alto council votes against high-speed rail station
By Jesse Dungan
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 10/26/2010 12:50:57 AM PDT
Palo Alto doesn't want a high-speed rail station in its city.
At its Monday night meeting, the council unanimously voted to tell the California High-Speed Rail Authority -- as well as other regional, state and federal agencies -- it does not want Palo Alto to be considered further for a station along the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles route.
mercurynews.com
As reported by the San Jose Mercury News:
The council responded by unanimously approving a formal letter to the high-speed rail authority calling for it to study the possibility of building a rail tunnel under the city. Despite Diridon's comments, the letter will also call for the rail authority to reopen the possibility of running the trains through the East Bay or along the Highway 101 or Interstate 280 corridors rather than along the Caltrain tracks. Another suggestion is to stop them in San Jose, forcing riders to transfer to Caltrain to get to San Francisco.
cahsr.blogspot.com |
