In light of the fact that this measure has been strengthened, I concur that we are talking now about getting critical high speed rail (with the usual taint of corruption that follows all major capital projects) vs not getting high speed rail at all, which would be even worse. I now reluctantly say - thumbs up. We can't wait another decade for rapid statewide rail to get off the ground. Eric B. John-Marc Chandonia wrote:

The bulk of Alameda's argument against Prop 1 is that all the money so far has gone to a corrupt contractor. However, the legislation does not require that contractor to actually build it; we could still approve the bond and then try to get our state reps to raise concerns about the contractor. Besides, if we blocked every government project built by corrupt contractors, we'd be living on sand dunes.

I also agree that the promotional case for rail is overblown in terms of ridership, but we should look towards how many people will want to ride the rail after the effects of peak oil become more apparent, and the cost of driving or flying to LA becomes prohibitive. The power for an electric train can come from a variety of sources, and don't necessarily have to come from coal. It's much more likely to get something built if we start now, and not after gas becomes even more expensive (as that will raise costs for construction and materials, and voters who can't afford to drive to work will be even less likely to pass a bond).

JMC

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability

-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara