Opinion: High-speed rail is expensive. So is the cost of doing nothing on transportation

To the editor: Congratulations to The Times for publishing yet another article showing just how expensive California’s high-speed rail system will be. It’s very useful to know that “experts” think the cost of a tunnel might be $5 billion (or is it $14 billion?). (“A 13.5-mile tunnel will make or break California’s bullet train,” Oct. 21)

Yes, high-speed rail is expensive. So are the alternatives, including doing nothing.

What is lacking is any analysis of the alternatives for moving people between affordable housing and jobs, and for improving mobility in general.

This first stage of high-speed rail construction is, as it should be, the establishment of a Northern California regional network, which in time will be connected with a similar network in the south. It’s up to the various Southern California rail boards to transition from slow-speed diesel to hybrid and electrification to give residents the mobility they deserve.

Paul Dyson, Burbank

The writer is president of the Rail Passenger Assn. of California and Nevada.

..

To the editor: Somebody has hijacked our Los Angeles-to-San Francisco bullet train.

Using current projections and under a best-case scenario, by 2025 Californians will have spent $21 billion to build segments of a Madera-to-Fresno train system that terminates via an expensive tunnel in Santa Clara County.

Even an elementary school student learns that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. What happened to the idea of building the track alongside the north-south 5 Freeway? Instead of laterals connecting to such a main line, Central Valley politicians bent the track to service their districts.

I give this design a “D” grade. Double the cost, and you’ve built hope for an incomplete starter train to San Jose.

Martin Conoley, Santa Barbara

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook