The funding of California’s high speed rail project
suffered another hit last week thanks to congressional budget cutting, but contractors across the state still hold out hope that they can benefit from the dream to connect San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento by bullet trains. Should the plan actually succeed,
San Joaquin Valley cities like Fresno and Bakersfield would benefit, too.
Or would they?
Advocates of
rail talk about the jobs that will result. Others tout modernization and the ability to travel from California’s largest hubs without enduring the hassles of air security. But opinions range all over the map whether large scale rail projects really do have a macroeconomic benefit.
Nevertheless, a
conference last week in
Fresno (pictured) was full of enthusiastic would-be contractors, and the construction could help give a lift to a region that suffers from some of the highest unemployment rates in the U.S.
Economists talk about the multiplier effect that infrastructure projects have on local communities. Contractors need information technology people, catering, supplies, and administrators. And in the long run, a safe, convenient, and effective rail system can be a boon to cities like Fresno and Bakersfield--but not for a long time, and the possibility of the final costs ranging anywhere from US$60 to $80 billion is worrisome.
Judging by the attendance at the conference at Fresno State’s Save Mart Center last Thursday, some businesses are bullish. They should be: Fresno and Bakersfield would be huge beneficiaries of this rail system, as would passengers. The cities are too close to Los Angeles and San Francisco to offer cost-effective air travel to those hubs. And businesses who find the Bay Area or the Southland too expensive to conduct business could find the San Joaquin Valley an attractive prospect if fast transportation elsewhere in the state were possible.
In any event, the time to build such a rail network is now--as with any huge construction project, the effects will not be reaped for years. But that does not mean we should not tackle them--an increasing population and maxed-out airports are just a couple of the reasons why California must pursue and complete the high speed rail project--with full transparency and please, without any wasteful spending that will launch strawman arguments.
About The Author
Leon Kaye
Leon Kaye is the founder and editor of GreenGoPost.com and its advisory division,
GGP Media.
Contact him to discuss how he can work with your organization or event.
His focus is making the business case for sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR).
He writes for San Francisco-based
Triple Pundit,
Inhabitat and now
The Guardian, for which he writes about corporate responsibility, water, and green building. He has also written for AIA's
Architect Magazine.
Leon works out of Fresno and Silicon Valley, California, and when he has free time, he enjoys hiking, gardening, cooking, weightlifting, and planning his next trip to one of the 60 countries he has visited. He has an MBA from USC's Marshall School of Business and is also a proud graduate of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC) and Cal State-Fresno.
The funding of California’s high speed rail project suffered another hit last week thanks to congressional budget cutting, but contractors across the state still hold out hope that they can benefit from the dream to connect San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento by bullet trains. Should the plan actually succeed, San Joaquin Valley cities like Fresno and Bakersfield would benefit, too.
Or would they?
Advocates of rail talk about the jobs that will result. Others tout modernization and the ability to travel from California’s largest hubs without enduring the hassles of air security. But opinions range all over the map whether large scale rail projects really do have a macroeconomic benefit.
Nevertheless, a conference last week in Fresno (pictured) was full of enthusiastic would-be contractors, and the construction could help give a lift to a region that suffers from some of the highest unemployment rates in the U.S.
Economists talk about the multiplier effect that infrastructure projects have on local communities. Contractors need information technology people, catering, supplies, and administrators. And in the long run, a safe, convenient, and effective rail system can be a boon to cities like Fresno and Bakersfield--but not for a long time, and the possibility of the final costs ranging anywhere from US$60 to $80 billion is worrisome.
Judging by the attendance at the conference at Fresno State’s Save Mart Center last Thursday, some businesses are bullish. They should be: Fresno and Bakersfield would be huge beneficiaries of this rail system, as would passengers. The cities are too close to Los Angeles and San Francisco to offer cost-effective air travel to those hubs. And businesses who find the Bay Area or the Southland too expensive to conduct business could find the San Joaquin Valley an attractive prospect if fast transportation elsewhere in the state were possible.
In any event, the time to build such a rail network is now--as with any huge construction project, the effects will not be reaped for years. But that does not mean we should not tackle them--an increasing population and maxed-out airports are just a couple of the reasons why California must pursue and complete the high speed rail project--with full transparency and please, without any wasteful spending that will launch strawman arguments.
Pingback: Live From the Amtrak San Joaquin | greengopost.com
Pingback: California Approves High Speed Rail After Contentious Debate | greengopost.com
Pingback: In One Picture: Why San Joaquin Valley Produce Rules | greengopost.com
Pingback: San Joaquin Valley’s Edeniq Inc. Pushes Cellulosic Ethanol Innovation
Pingback: San Joaquin Valley’s Edeniq Inc. Pushes Cellulosic Ethanol Innovation | greengopost.com