Burlingame's own Kent Lauder has published an opinion piece in the San Mateo Daily Journal that raises several excellent issues with high-speed rail. Kent writes
The arguments we have heard for the construction of high-speed rail are not the result of reasoned, objective studies or careful analyses based on the factual evidence. They are based on whimsy.
Consider the proponents’ rationales: One, it will create jobs. Two, it will be an alternative to cars and it will help the environment by reducing greenhouse emissions. Three, its cost will be defrayed when 43 million people per year use this system. Four, it will be financed in large part by federal money.
One, of course it will provide jobs, a bridge to nowhere provides jobs, as do all governmental programs, no matter how unsound the project. The critical consideration is the cost/benefit factor; how much bang for the buck? As a convenience for those wanting to wait in line at the airport, this does not meet a high standard.
Two, will it help the environment by reducing emissions? Only when compared to cars, not planes. The impact on the environment, as it carves it way across converted, fertile farm and grazing land, as well as through communities that will be split apart by its massive walls, will be more destructive than constructive.
Three, 43 million riders a year, presumably its break-even point, works out to about 123,000 people a day, or 5,000 per hour — 24 hours a day — every day! Who are these people? San Francisco and Los Angeles are dead-end terminals, not accessible to the rest of the country. At six hours (riding time only) round trip, no one is going to be using this as a daily commute. Real commuters will fly, as they do currently. It’s faster.
Four, federal dollars will amount to only a very small percentage of the total projected cost of 40 (read 60) dollars. We pay the rest.
The proponents’ reasoning is but a vague reference to not wanting to fall behind other countries (Japan and Europe) that have HSR; as if the construction of a futuristic, Tomorrowland ride were its own justification. Those countries have their own specific sets of circumstances that are not pertinent to our own. It is poor reasoning to extrapolate their situation onto ours. Incidentally, they are experiencing their own financial difficulties.
But more critically, the arguments are an ego-generated rationale that reflects a 1900s mind set of blind allegiance to “progress,” as in bigger and faster is better. That is anachronistic thinking. It may have been proper for a time, not so now. Progress, in its truest sense, is true innovation which leads to a betterment without impairment. Progress arises out of cultural needs, not artificially induced “wants” derived from wishful thinking.
One alternative to this project, one that would reflect true progress, would be to invest this money in new forms of alternative energy. It would provide jobs. It would be a thousand-fold more effective at lessening environmental damage. Energy independence would make, not lose, money for the state.
The cost-benefit difference of HSR versus developing energy independence is so staggering as to be laughable, yet such logic will never trump the stubborn, rationalizing entrenchment of its apologists.
In addition, here is a link to the 3 1/2 minute video that was shown at last night City Council meeting during the HSR update. A common reaction to the video is "it's just as bad as we thought".
