From: Martin Engel <martinengel_at_(domain_name_was_removed)>
Date: Tue Dec 18 2007 - 10:59:59 PST

Basically, here is what this article is saying. We need a north south high speed train connecting SF and LA because both of these regions are anticipating huge population increases. The north is expected to grow "from Salinas to Sacramento." And, argues the editorial, the alternative Altamont route would serve the central valley riders coming into the Bay Area and Sacramento. Well, the high speed train will not be doing any of that connecting. What they are asking for as a solution is totally different that what is intended in this project. The high speed train advocates are pushing for what we don't need, and what we do need nobody seems to be interested in.

Another argument being made is that the longer we wait, the more expensive it is. That may well be true. The Bay Bridge is indeed a good example of major cost over-runs. However, if a project is totally the wrong one, what difference does it make whether it costs
$50 billion or $100 billion?

As we have said before, what needs to be built is a rail system that meets the needs described in the article; that is, urban and regional high speed mass transit connecting the population expanding East with the population centers along the cost. The Bay Area can only expand eastward. Ditto the LA Basin. Each should be developing better regional transit systems. That, however has nothing to do with a north south high speed luxury train.

"It might appear like utter craziness. . . " is the right way to start that sentence. Of all the things that budget-deficit California does not need now or in the foreseeable future is a train that will cost well over $100 billion dollars. The editors talk about $30 billion. They get that number from ten year old CHSRA press-releases.

San Francisco Examiner, time to get off your butts, do some serious homework and stop writing this fluff.

Martin

---

Editorial
Don't derail high-speed trains
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper
2007-12-18 11:00:00.0
Current rank: # 75 of 10,526
SAN FRANCISCO -
To those Californians even aware of the proposed high-speed railway between Los Angeles and San Francisco - ultimately extending to Sacramento and San Diego - the repeatedly postponed project must seem like a vague dream for some undefined future. So probably it would surprise many that the state has a California High-Speed Rail Authority with current budgeting of $20.7 million for engineering and environmental work.

Not only that, on Wednesday the Rail Authority is to pick the main track route into San Francisco. And a $10 billion bond for starting construction is supposed to be on the November ballot, unless Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger postpones it for a third time.

It might appear like utter craziness to seriously consider proceeding with yet another bond measure, when California faces years of record-breaking deficits, starting with $14 billion for 2008-09. But the uncomfortable truth is that we literally cannot afford to delay preparing for obviously growing demographic needs.

For example, the Bay Bridge seismic rebuild is now costing taxpayers more than double what it would have if action began in 1989, when the Loma Prieta earthquake actually happened. By contrast, the 1994 earthquake-demolished freeways of Los Angeles were fully operational in only one year, while the Bay Bridge is still unfinished.

California must build high-speed rail because our population is projected to grow almost 50 percent by 2050. The Northern California mega-region will expand from 14 million to 24 million people from Salinas to Sacramento. We need a genuinely practical way to get millions of intrastate drivers and long-distance commuters off the overcrowded roads, not to mention preventing the state's thronged airports from becoming totally clogged by millions more passengers.

At two and a half hours from downtown San Francisco to central Los Angeles or Anaheim, high-speed trains powered by electricity would be a convenient and inexpensive alternative to a one-hour flight between SFO and LAX. Total travel time would be virtually the same, after adding the waits required to get through the airport, traveling to and from the airport, plus risking one of the increasingly prevalent runway delays.

Tomorrow's track-route decision by the Rail Authority is between Altamont Pass in the East Bay or the Pacheco Pass south of Gilroy. The Pacheco crossing is recommended by the authority's staff and the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. It would connect to San Francisco via San Jose and the Peninsula's Caltrain right of way. Construction would cost less because there would be no need to build a cross-bay bridge through a national wildlife refuge.

Altamont Pass would better serve more of the fast-growing Central Valley and riders between the Bay Area and Sacramento.

Most important right now is retaining momentum for bringing high-speed rail to the California central corridor. To stop and wait for better economic times before proceeding with the groundwork merely guarantees that final costs will be swollen far beyond today's
$30 billion.

Examiner

-- 






**********************
Martin Engel
1621 Stone Pine Lane
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650:323-1670
martinengel@earthlink.net
**********************

Received on Tue Dec 18 13:22:25 2007