Posted by gunste, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 12:44 pm
The High Speed rail in California reflects some historical events that occurred in the 1945-60 time frame. That is when Los Angeles scrapped its rapid transit Red Car rail system with active lobbying of General Motors. No public transport will sell more cars. "What is good for GM is good for America".
The Interstate Highway system fostered this approach further as did the suburban sprawl of US cities. There was no lobby to look ahead when traffic jams were unheard of. It was the short term view, so common for US actions - government and business.
Building it today costs more and is less affordable in an era of government deficits and shrinking revenues. But what will traffic be like in 25 years? Replacing short haul airline trips with trains sounds good business. It seems to work in the NE corridor.
Going to Tahoe by train is very comfortable, but one must start in Emeryville. It costs less than gas for one person and is less hassle than flying to Reno.
Posted by GOLLY, a resident of another community, on Jul 17, 2012 at 1:58 pm
What is left to say about HSR that hasn't been asked as many times as Mitt has been asked about his taxes.
The deal is done with HSR.....
Mitt, on the other hand, has blown it for being arrogant like all the rich folk who do not want to show their hidden assets. They are mostly on Sand Hill Rd. and the HSR I hope runs through it one day.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jul 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm
yes rail works in the NE corridor. For two reasons; much higher population densitities and IT IS HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. HSR like virtually all long haul passenger rail is an albatross. It is an outdated and outmoded form of transportation. On top of that it costs too much and if it ever actually gets built, my grandchildren and their grandchildren will be paying to subsidize this boondoggle. Nice legacy to hand down to our decendents eh?