Question of the wek: “Does the revised estimate of the cost of the California High Speed Rail project (down to $68.4 billion from $98 billion) affect your support of the project?”
–
- Karen Anderson:“No. I never supported it. It is a boondoggle of huge proportions. You would have to transfer in the Central Valley if you left from here. How high speed is that? We cannot count on not having TSA take over trains either. Right now the cost for the train ride to Southern California can be greater than the cost of a sale priced airline ticket. High speed trains will likely cost more. Who is going to pay more to end up in downtown LA instead of LAX? Has anyone looked into the final destinations of the air travelers? Plus, I do not trust any estimate in this highly charged political fiasco. Let the people vote again!”
-
Dave Appling: “I supported it then and I support it now. By the time the first passengers board, we will be some 60 years behind Japan and 40 behind France. The plan is not perfect, but if the nay-sayers’ standards had been applied to the Interstate system, we would still be driving two-lane highways.”
-
Chris Bryant: “No, in spite of the difficulties and controversies, we need to expand mass transportation opportunities. Reducing green house gases and reliance on oil is worth paying a premium compared to the current cost of auto and air transportation.”
-
David Cohen: “No. I still support high speed rail and want to see it completed and become fully operational.”
-
Dennis Kennedy: “Yes! This is much more realistic in cost, schedule and in minimizing impacts on communities and properties from San Francisco all the way to Gilroy. An added bonus for us in South County is the improvement and speed-up of Caltrain service to Morgan Hill, San Martin and Gilroy.”
-
Julian Mancias: “Yes. I am more in favor of moving forward with the rail.”
-
Henry Miller: “I was totally in favor of California High Speed Rail project before the revised estimate, and am even more so now. Those opposed are of the same mind as those who opposed NYC subways, metropolitan airports, etc., because ‘We can’t afford them.’ Japan, Europe and others have had high speed rail for decades. Lets become leaders again, not just nay-sayers.”
-
Jeff Nunes: “No. As I understand it because the project will now only cost twice what we were told it would, instead of three times, this is suppose to change support for the project? It is both comical and sad. And if you mix in the fact that some of the ‘savings’ comes from using existing rail that is of questionable integrity to handle a high speed train, then most definitely this revision doesn’t change my mind.”
-
Lisa Pampuch: “No. I didn’t support this project when the cost was $40 billion, I didn’t support it when the cost was $98 billion, and this latest guesstimate doesn’t inspire trust or change my position. Remember, voters have approved only $10 billion of whatever the final cost ends up being.”
-
Jeff Smith: “No, I never supported this project and I still do not. First, I think the estimate is meaningless. These government projects almost always go way, way over budget, and in the end they proffer some lame excuse why it did, and too bad, we the tax-payers lose. Second, we can’t afford it – WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY! Third, I don’t think we need it. Let’s pay down our debt before we create more.”
-
Steve Staloch: “No. It’s an estimate, which is government code for ‘estimate is for marketing and closing the sale purposes only and excludes guaranteed cost overruns.
