The California Chamber of Commerce has come out against Propostion 1A, the $9.95 billion bond issue on the Nov. 4 ballot. The chamber says the measure is too costly. It's a deplorably shortsighted position.
The chamber believes there are "other projects that mitigate congestion that should be a high priority." Like more freeways? Talk about too costly. The high-speed rail system is expected to cost around $40 billion by the time it's finished. To get the same passenger capacity with expanded freeway systems and airports, we'd have to spend somewhere between $80 billion and $120 billion -- and we'd just be increasing congestion and air pollution. That's a dumb solution.
The chamber is still stuck in the mid-20th century when it comes to transportation planning. That's a shame.
No comment.
It is a shame that we are back at the freeways, for it still does not put a sensible number of passengers into one carrier. But perhaps next time round we can put less emphasis on one particular connoiseur train but zero in on a pedestrian (no pun intended) rail system serving more people to more destinations. And 1A has not lost yet.
Let's hope the State Chamber's short-sided opposition is no more effective than the Clovis Chamber's was in opposing Measure C.
It would behoove them to take a trip to see how well things work in Europe. They could learn a thing or two.
Russ, listing costs is not an argument. Costs need to be compared with their corresponding benefits.
Spending $40 billion (does that include interest? operating costs?) on infrastructure that would serve...100,000 people a day? 10,000? 500,000? is not smart at all if $120 billion could be spent on other things serving 10 million people a day? 1 million? 5 million? 20 million?
Mike, you're wrong on the facts. The Clovis Chamber didn't oppose Measure C. They supported it. Almost 20 years later, they opposed a version of the extension that bought off potential special-interest opposition with allocations for faddish, ineffective side projects that were not consistent with the ballot language the voters approved the first time.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of value-for-money, especially when it's taxpayers' money.
I think Mr. Gastelum has taught us a little history lesson. Thank you! from the bottom of my wallet.
The extension of Measure C is what I meant, but thanks for the correction. The fact is that they supported the original measure when Fwy 168 through Clovis was bumped up to the top of the priority list. When it came to complete projects for the rest of the County, they bailed out.
It's not relevant that some of the items included in the extension were not on the original measure. The voters got a chance to review the changes, and approved of them overwhelmingly.
If that were true, why wouldn't the Clovis Chamber of Commerce become an disinterested party, Fwy 168 is the only one in town. Do smart entities act aagainst their own interests? Not in the real world. I don't think that they opposed transportation enhancement as much as they did not endorse the alternative, a better plan for the taxpayers' (private and business) of Clovis.
They got theirs, then decided to shaft the rest of us. To say they wanted a better plan is disingenous. They had plenty of opportunity to participate in the process, and the end result was a workable compromise acceptable to the vast majority of the County.
So who in the end got...oh lets just drop it.
I have never owned a business, and I don't pretend to know anyone in the Clovis Chamber of Commerce.
That said I would not characterize them as disingenous (what ever that is.)
For crying out loud, why do you think that these folks are selected to represent the business community, so they can compromise? They are not bureaucrats.
Is it a conservative value that compromise is a sign of weakness or something? It is true that there are some issues we shouldn't compromise on (rape, murder, etc.), but transportation plans don't rise to that level. Compromise is how civilized societies get along. The alternatives are either chaos or tyranny.
I don't recall this to be a liberal or conservative arguement. However, since you mentioned it.... rape, murder, chaos and tyranny with a compromise in between. Another delicious bologna sandwich in disguise.
I don't recall this to be a liberal or conservative arguement. However, since you mentioned it.... rape, murder, chaos and tyranny with a compromise in between. Another delicious bologna sandwich in disguise.
I did't know there was another in the universe, but he thinks like me so it's all good. Welcome to the blog. Is that your real name? Better prepare an answer because there is going to be alot of speculation.
Solve the water dilemna first, before we set up for another population explosion, which is what this bullet train will do.
A bullet train is meant to bring about this change--the Central Valley will become the next bedroom community of LA and the Bay Area. Don't kid yourself. But where is the water going to come from. Do you like being thirsty, or not being allowed to irrigate your landscaping? And you can only imagine what this will do to our beautiful waterways...they will be as dry as the San Juaquin River bottom out near Mendota.
Besides this reality, I am against paving over the most fertile ground on planet earth. How are we going to feed this exploding population if we destroy the farmland that feeds us? Feeds the world? The agenda of Mike D. and his ilk is to change the political dynamics of the Central Valley, by importing huge numbers of liberals into the valley from the north and south, and voting themselves into greater power. Another power grab by the libs at all costs, even causing food and water shortages, starvation, environmental destruction, and lowering the quality of life here in the valley.
Yet liberals claim to be the compassionate ones, so concerned about the environment. NOT SO.