« Council Candidate Forum - Part 2 | Main | Taxing Ideas »

October 08, 2015

Comments

pat giorni

And it looks like Palo Alto is moving full steam ahead to put on the brakes

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/10/14/palo-alto-blasts-high-speed-rail-project-for-moving-too-fast

Art

where do the city council candidates stand on HSR?

Thomas Hornblower

Pat, your comment re the trans bay terminal brought to mind what Willie Brown wrote in his column two years ago regarding the announcement that it would cost 19% more than the original 1.9 billion price tag, "We always knew the initial estimate was way under the real cost. Just like we never had a real cost for the Central Subway or the Bay Bridge or any other massive construction project. [...] If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved."

fred

Pat, a lawsuit in Sacramento to overturn a bond measure written by Sacramento and passed by the voters? It's time to realize that this train is coming and the longer we wait to cooperate the worse the results for Burlingame will be.

I think the city needs to negotiate an underpass for Broadway and a viaduct for a quarter mile stretch in south Burlingame and an underpass or pedestrian/bike pass at Oak Grove.

Jennifer

Fred, it sounds like you drank the kool-aid! ....."a bond measure passed by voters"...I think you'd better go back and read the not-so-fine print. This is not Prop. 1A.

I didn't vote for that one, but there are plenty of people who did. Maybe they should have realized the pie-in-the-sky prices and travel time promises were not even remotely possible. What is being proposed now throughout the state has close to no resemblance to what was written. I don't even think the route was chosen at that point! Maybe someone like Pat can post the original text as it appeared, as a refresher.

Joe

@Fred: "I think the city needs to negotiate an underpass for Broadway and a viaduct for a quarter mile stretch in south Burlingame and an underpass or pedestrian/bike pass at Oak Grove."

This is known as "porpoising" in the track design world and is not feasible engineering over that distance at 110-120 mph. Fuggedaboutit.

pat giorni

Bedtime reading from the MOST reliable chronicler of the Big Project brought to you by Boston's BIG DIG engineers blessed by the CHSRA and championed by the Governor to the detriment of every taxpaying stakeholder. Next time, I'll tell you how I really feel. Caveat; start scrolling from page 25 for the hundreds of articles in chronological order:
http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/kathy-hamilton

If, after reading even half the articles I'm betting you will no longer remain in the appeasement mode.

pat giorni

More....

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_28972976/palo-alto-concerned-that-high-speed-rail-may

Jennifer

Yet, another:
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2015-10-17/private-firm-questions-high-speed-rail-funding-critics-cite-lack-of-private-investors-as-flaw-in-planning-for-68-billion-transportation-project/1776425152025.html

...Critics have cited the lack of private investors as a major flaw in planning what would be the nation’s largest transportation infrastructure project, with a cost estimated at $68 billion. So the California High-Speed Rail Authority asked firms to suggest how to reduce costs, speed up construction and attract outside money.

In response it received 36 submissions from firms including global construction and engineering giants AECOM, Siemens and Parsons. The rail authority released the documents to the Associated Press under a Public Records Act request.

The authority has planned an “initial operating segment” from Merced to Burbank, with the first service scheduled for 2022. On Friday, authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said one purpose of the proposals was to see whether the route could be built sooner.

The target date to connect San Francisco with the Los Angeles area is 2029.

One common theme from the documents: Where will the money come from to make that happen?

“The total funding identified is still insufficient” to deliver an initial operating segment, Parsons wrote in its 17-page submission. “This shortfall, as well as the uncertainty around these sources, must be addressed.”...

pat giorni

Grade Separation Solved...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijnJ7XdOk_A

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.