Town Square

High-speed-rail analysis sets stage for more lawsuits

Original post made on Apr 20, 2012

The state agency charged with building California's high-speed rail system approved on Thursday a long-debated environmental analysis for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line -- a voluminous document that the project's opponents immediately characterized as an invitation to more lawsuits.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 20, 2012, 11:15 AM


Like this comment
Posted by Keith Wollenberg
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Apr 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

How long, and how many lawsuits will it take to kill this idea? it was badly conceived in teh beginning and based upon a tissue of lies about ridership. The assumption is that ridership will be much higher than that of the Acela, although densities are much lower in California. There is a very good reason why no one in private industry has any interest in investing in this project, in spite of the presence of $13.3Billion in government funding.

Let's recognize the fact and say enough is enough. Surely the Legislative Analyst's report should be sufficient to get our state government (if not our Governor) to see the harsh light of reality?

Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 20, 2012 at 3:58 pm

Good question, Keith. Of course this project should be killed.

Unfortunately, Sacramento never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm

The unions want the jobs. So their lackeys in Sacramanto will never kill it and risk upsetting the unions. You know the same unions that provide huge amounts of money for those legilators to be elected and reelected.

Like this comment
a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm

We all can't wait for the old folks to give up. We're the only country in the world in the stone ages. Beacause of a few millionaires who are up tight.
Most of you will be too old to use it. We won't. And we want the jobs that will emerge.

Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Young Voice:

if you want it you better be prepared to pay for it. IF they build it, it will need to be subsidized. The state is already going broke so think of the tax rate doubling to pay for the boondoggle you "young" people will be using. Except you won't because it won't be "high speed rail" and it will cost a whole lot more to take it than it will to fly or drive.

Oh, Mr Gordon, we know it's you.

Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm

Young Voice -

Those ever increasing tuitions at California's universities that you hate and our funding of high speed rail are related.

Figure it out.

Like this comment
Posted by Young Voice (2)
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm

To young voice:

When you start paying taxes, you'll realize the connection between the legislators making promises to unions for projects that CA can't afford, and then those same legislators (normally Democrats in Sacramento, in Assembly or Senator or Governor's Office) saying that the state is broke, they are running a deficit (that means they overspent and don't have enough money to pay the bills) and that they need more money from you (that's through "taxes") to pay for these new, and old, projects that Unions are making money off of. You'll also see the connection between these Unions giving money to Democratic politicians running for office in Sacramento, and then getting elected, and then those same Unions having meetings with those politicians to talk about projects/payback they want for getting them elected.

Oh, and you'll also learn that the game and goal in getting a large government project started and funded is to severely underestimate the costs to build/construction, severely overstate the benefits of the project (like ridership, profit, GHG reduction, etc), and then hope no one looks back years later to say that it was a boondoggle.