"New high-speed rail plan faces criticism"
New article content but this headline could have been at any time in the last 7 years.

"creating a high-speed connection to the Central Valley would help address the affordable housing crisis in the Bay Area"

I'm not unbiased, but even with that, I don't know how anyone can make this argument with a straight face. "Honey, even Santa Clara is expensive now; let's go house-hunting in Merced this weekend." Get real.

House of cards... Terrible idea , terrible execution of idea and will continue to waste tax payer money for years to come. This is a total black hole.... It makes all the VTA ideas look like peanuts in terms of waste, and the VTA only has incompetent ideas that are a total waste.

When debating the high speed rail cost, we need to remember that the money is spent on new jobs, from attorneys to ditch diggers to jobs producing construction and administrative materials (plus some purchasing right-of-way and on bond interest). The money injected into the economy by the jobs will be enormous, and most will stay in the state economy (review Econ 101). Hopefully the state's portion of costs will be spent within California.

This terrible project with only 20% funding at best and no way to meet the travel time and ticket cost was dead, now we have to fight to kill it again.
High speed rail is 9060s technology that will be a burden on the tax payers for the remote hope that it will help a few people. We have airline companies current providing far faster and better service with little government funding.
Lets kill High Speed Rail

@vonlost

You have just repeated one of the most common economic fallacies, praising the benefits of what is seen while ignoring what is unseen.

What is seen are the overt benefits of a rail line which may be economically wasteful. What is unseen is what removing $64 billion from the state's coffers sacrifices in order to build the rail. That $64 billion dollars could do a lot put to other means. Imagine how much housing it could build directly, or how much economic benefit a correspondingly lesser tax load could produce.

Imagine the economic benefits of building a giant wall with Mexico! All those wall builders would see a payday and stimulate the local economy. What about the economic benefits of burying money in a mine and then sealing it, so that people start digging for money (If you did indeed take econ 101, you might get this reference).

Generally, subsidizing unprofitable ventures is a net economic loss.

@Resident,

Building and operating a rail line provides economic benefits, compared to building and operating a wall; but I do like your illustration! The money spent is not instead of other items; it's additional.

A public rail line's operation need not be profitable to provide economic benefits; it enables other benefits.

Two scenarios:

First, let's see what $64B will buy in transportation. Assuming plane tickets from SFO/SJC to LA airports cost $200 round trip, you could bug 320 million round trip tickets. If an average of 6 million people per year fly between LA and SF that means you could buy everybody a free ticket for 53 years.

Second, given the pace of development on driverless cars, I think it's safe to assume they'll be ready to roll long before high speed rail is complete. If so, what would you rather do, A) Drive to the train station, go through security, spend 4-5 hours on the train, get off the train and go rent a car, and finally drive to your destination or, B) go to your driveway, enter your destination, and then kick back in the comfort of your car for roughly the same door-to-door time watching a movies, working, chilling, etc. ?

Why are we even considering HSR?

Talk about ENCOURAGING SPRAWL. The plan acts like people will gratefully reside in Fresno or Bakersfield or anywhere out in the isolated central valley that a stop can be added.

That's some commute?

What's the weekly fare? $500 ?

Hmmmmm. Someone needs to consider the environment.

Evolving California High Speed Rail Now Degraded To Only A Commuter Train!

Web Link

I think the sure way to relieve traffic congestion, thereby enabling people to better get around the whole West Bay Area and southward, and to provide jobs for sure in the building, is to invest in a transportation corridor that lowers the grade of Central Expwy and the railroad tracks from east of the San Antonio overpass into Sunnyvale. Then that city can lower the same trough the Mary intersection and it will line up with the rest of the corridor that Sunnyvale had the excellent foresight to build right in the first place! Palo Alto has also been talking about this, and San Mateo, too. The more cities to do it, the better!

Think of the advantages:

No stops required for traffic at intersections for those crossing over or under, thus greater traffic flow and easier.

Greatly enhanced SAFETY with separate grade level crossings.

Pedestrians and cyclists can flow better across as well.

Quieter for miles around with the expressway and train tracks sunken.

Joe Simitian has explained that there is a ton of money, like a billion dollars available to do this! Ask him about it!

And wouldn't it be great for this solution to kill the need for VTA's weak idea of dedicated bus lanes on El Camino?