Greecifornia

[sirs]

Californians being made to spend billions we do not have on a project we do not need
By JIM SILVA / Silva, R-Huntington Beach, represents the 67th Assembly District

Amid much fanfare, Gov. Jerry Brown this month signed a law authorizing roughly $8 billion to start building high-speed rail. This is perhaps the worst legislation I have seen during my entire tenure in the state Assembly.

It is the worst legislation because it puts Californians on the hook for billions of dollars to finance a project that will not be completed for decades, if it ever gets off the ground. Meanwhile, cash-strapped school districts are firing teachers, cutting back on curriculum and considering shortening the school year

Funding this train also makes a mockery of the governor's claim that we need to raise taxes – via his Proposition 30 on the November ballot – to save our state. He cannot cry poverty when he is enthusiastic about spending borrowed money on a questionable priority.

The initial $8 billion is nothing more than a down payment on a massive project that is currently estimated to cost $68 billion. That is not even counting credit card interest we have to pay on the loans and the inevitable cost overruns that tend to occur with public projects of this scale.

In 2008, California voters approved $9.9 billion in bonds for high-speed rail. Since then, cost estimates have varied from $34 billion to $98.5 billion, with the current estimate at $68 billion. Where is all of this money going to come from? With no private investors in sight, and the elimination by Congress of additional federal funds, the people targeted to provide these funds would, of course, be taxpayers, like you.

The interest payments on the first $4.7 billion in bond sales will cost taxpayers $350 million to $390 million annually from the state's general fund, meaning at least $350 million less for core priorities such as education and public safety.

Boosters of high-speed rail will argue that this money cannot be used for other purposes anyway, as it is prohibited by law. While this may be true now, it is also true that laws can be changed, and often are. In fact, legislative Democrats quickly killed a measure that would have allowed voters to repeal high-speed rail at the ballot box.
It is disheartening that the state will now spend billions we do not have on a project we do not need. The problems with the high-speed rail project are well-documented. It will destroy farmland in the Central Valley, and there is no guarantee of private investment to defray costs. Nonpartisan organizations such as the Legislative Analyst's Office, State Auditor and even the state-created California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group have raised serious concerns about finances, management and ridership estimates.

Even worse, the new spending comes just weeks after the governor signed a budget that cut education, public safety and health programs. His budget focuses on education for 99 percent of "trigger" cuts if his tax measure fails. But even if the governor gets his way on higher taxes, our schools still lose because they will not receive new funding.

The defenders of high-speed rail can say whatever they want, but the simple truth remains that California will go deeper into debt to make their dream a reality. To accelerate the construction of high-speed rail during these tough budget times makes no sense.

We now have a state budget that holds our schools hostage, contains no spending reform and no pension reform, but will instead spend billions on a train to nowhere. California does not need a new train or higher taxes to pay for it. What we need are better budget priorities from Sacramento.

[kimba1]

Remember due to it being in california the higher restriction may end this project with a regular train instead of a bullet train.

[sirs]

It already will be....the cost came down from its 90+ billion to the current underproposed 68billion, by way of using "shared track" which won't be able to handle high speed rail....which happens to be illegal, since that's not what the original proposition passed by the voters, included, in any way, shape or form, included

[kimba1]

Any bets the end cost will still be 90 billions for the regular train? Remember all the land is still not secured for the project and very doubtful it'll go down in price despite the economy.

[Plane]

I like big projects.

If this was a 200mph train from Los Angelas to Atlanta by way of Chicago, New York, Baltimore and by way of Tallihasse and Dallas on the return loop, I would like it a lot.

   But why are the goals for this one so modest, and why are the costs so high?

Even if I liked the idea more than I do , I would want to see some evidence that it was justified by riders and cargo before I dumped any real money onto it.


   BTW is it easy or difficult to make this sort of train terrorist resistant?

[sirs]

Any bets the end cost will still be 90 billions for the regular train?

Oh, and THEN SOME.  It has to be maintananced, supported, staffed, etc.  It'll hit the 100+Billion, easy, before its even "completed"

Remember all the land is still not secured for the project and very doubtful it'll go down in price despite the economy

Not to mention that the proposition passed by voters specifically was to fund highspeed rail ONLY.  Not shared lines, not lines where the train goes highspeed here, then lowspeed there.  this is a break in the proposition, and should derail any attempt to get started in the court system, when that's been made crystal clear

[kimba1]

this used to have an easy answer. if a person knowingly walk across the tracks and got hit by a train. whose at fault? the answer used to be the idiot who walked acrossed the tracks,but in california that not always the answer. that question alone should be factored why that train can`t be made

[sirs]

Common sense would be with the person crossing.  But this country has been leaking common sense for quite a while now