Proposition 1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train

[Barry]

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/ImagesforMembers/Wacco%20Voter%20Guide.JPG

Proposition 1A - Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train
This one seemed pretty clear to me. I am planning on voting yes. Any body have any comments?

[Zeno Swijtink]

This one seemed pretty clear to me. I am planning on voting yes. Any body have any comments?


I copy an email form an acquaintance, the transportation expert David Schonbrunn. For the record, I am opposed to SMART (while David supports it) as tying down too much $$ on too small a solution to our need to reduce PMT and GHG. - Zeno

***


On Wednesday, David Schonbrunn had an intense debate on KALW-FM with Quentin Kopp, Chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In the debate, Schonbrunn identified how the politicization of High-Speed Rail development has resulted in an inferior and unworkable proposal, and why TRANSDEF has concluded that the $9.95 billion HSR bond measure, Proposition 1A, must fail if California is to have viable High-Speed Rail.

You can find the blue-colored link to the podcast file near the bottom of the HSR page on our website:

https://transdef.org/HSR/HSR.html

If you need a more detailed analysis of what is wrong with the work of the High-Speed Rail Authority, there is a blue link at the bottom of the same web page to testimony delivered yesterday to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee by High-Speed Rail expert Joseph Vranich. He concluded by calling for the dissolution of the Authority.

Please vote NO on Proposition 1A.

--David

David Schonbrunn, President
Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF)
P.O. Box 151439
San Rafael, CA 94915-1439
415-460-5260
[email protected]
https://www.tran

[decterlove]

This is something I would normally kneejerk vote for but I heard the con side to it and it was pretty convincing.

Apparently even in France and Japan these trains don't pay for themselves and the con side mentioned how California is so spread out with little in between SF and LA...so few riders picked on on the way.

The trains also apparently have to weigh more in the States because of our safety laws. And the con side said tickets would have to be like $500. bucks/pro side says $50...maybe truth is somewhere in between.

But either way it might be more effective to use the funds elsewhere like within SF or LA or to rebuild the crumbling and pre-Katrina-like disaster potential of the levee system in the Sacramento Delta. California can hardly afford any projects now that aren't truly necessities or at least highly efficient and effective. Seems like the 7th largest economy in the world is also one of the most poorly managed.

But what convinced me the most was my own thoughts that more and more people will be traveling less in general due to the economy....plus more and more options for conferencing online.

[Braggi]

This is something I would normally kneejerk vote for but I heard the con side to it and it was pretty convincing.
... And the con side said tickets would have to be like $500. bucks/pro side says $50...maybe truth is somewhere in between. ...

Triple the ticket cost for me, my wife and daughter and it's clear that we'll save money by driving our car. Once we arrived we'd have to rent a car, we'd have to pay for parking up front, and it all becomes unworkable for us.

This is a year we shouldn't be talking about huge, expensive new projects of any kind (unless they're going to pay for themselves). The state is broke and the GropenFurher is a liar.

Good post decterlove.

-Jeff