USC/LATimes Poll: 52% of CA voters want to stop High-Speed Rail (San Francisco: 2013, mover)

[18Montclair]

Point Blank, what's being delivered to us is NOT what we voted for as far as cost, and 70% of respondents want to revote on this project.

52% want bullet train stopped, poll finds - latimes.com

[countofmc]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Point Blank, what's being delivered to us is NOT what we voted for

Sums up Californian "democracy"

[countofmc]

Can someone also explain to me again why we need high speed rail when Southwest Airlines basically runs a plane between LA and San Francisco on the hour?

[nslander]

Originally Posted by countofmc

Can someone also explain to me again why we need high speed rail when Southwest Airlines basically runs a plane between LA and San Francisco on the hour?

Well, SWA Cattle Car: arrive at LAX 1.5 hours to account for and security and off-site parking; in the air 55 minutes, 5 to exit, 10 minute walk through SFO to ground transportation, assuming no baggage; 10 to wait for and ride people mover; 40 minutes to get BART ticket, wait for BART and travel from SFO to Embarcadero= 3.5 hours, three seats, one long walk with baggage through SFO and the warm, yet moist, urban embrace provided by BART.

HSR: Prop 1A stated 2:48, but let round to 3:00, from DTLA to the Embarcadero: one seat, leg room, and an occasional break from the re-circulated air of airports and pressurized cabins. HSR provides equal, or better, actual door-to-door time as commercial air travel.

The cost of not building HSR. Taxpayers will end up subsidizing increased airport and highway capacity on a per unit basis in the absence of HSR. Some report estimate that cost exceeding that of building HSR, but whatever the number is, it is not zero. Opponents have yet to even countenance that reality.

Unlike air travel which is only good between major cities, a high speed rail provides plenty of intermediate service, at a time airlines are reduced intermediate service. Huge numbers of available city pairs have the ability to bring millions of people closer together despite distance. It will increasing affordable housing stock to prospective commuters, which will be an incentive for businesses to stay or move here. The Central Valley also stands to benefit, as new businesses can set up shop and locate manufacturing in a place with a relative abundance of affordable land with reach of an urban area. The Central Valley’s unemployment is sky-high. Connecting it to the coasts with bullet trains will be a huge benefit to the entire state.

Also reflected in the same poll results: 61% majority said the bullet train would help reduce traffic on highways and at airports, and 65% said it would create jobs. The 35% who actually responded “no” to that second question are baseline, categorical opposition. Construction on the Fresno section is estimated to create 20,000 jobs which will be a major economic stimulus for a region badly in need of it. 75 years ago California faced a similar crisis. The state benefited from major infrastructure projects like Boulder Dam, the Central Valley Project, and the bay bridges. Now? We can’t even wipe our backsides with litigation and endless concern trolling.

[k81689]

Again, someone has pay for it.
Again, another majority rules and minority walks.
Again, another Detroit City like diaster.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by k81689

Again, someone has pay for it.
Again, another majority rules and minority walks.
Again, another Detroit City like diaster.

CA will become a "diaster" like Detroit because of HSR? Didn't know that's what did it for that city.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Point Blank, what's being delivered to us is NOT what we voted for as far as cost, and 70% of respondents want to revote on this project.

52% want bullet train stopped, poll finds - latimes.com

Anybody who was using their brains knew they were totally lying about the costs. I love the idea of high speed rail, but I knew it would be a boondoggle, so I didn't vote for it. I'm not happy about the fact that I was right.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by nslander

Well, SWA Cattle Car: arrive at LAX 1.5 hours to account for and security and off-site parking; in the air 55 minutes, 5 to exit, 10 minute walk through SFO to ground transportation, assuming no baggage; 10 to wait for and ride people mover; 40 minutes to get BART ticket, wait for BART and travel from SFO to Embarcadero= 3.5 hours, three seats, one long walk with baggage through SFO and the warm, yet moist, urban embrace provided by BART.

HSR: Prop 1A stated 2:48, but let round to 3:00, from DTLA to the Embarcadero: one seat, leg room, and an occasional break from the re-circulated air of airports and pressurized cabins. HSR provides equal, or better, actual door-to-door time as commercial air travel.

The cost of not building HSR. Taxpayers will end up subsidizing increased airport and highway capacity on a per unit basis in the absence of HSR. Some report estimate that cost exceeding that of building HSR, but whatever the number is, it is not zero. Opponents have yet to even countenance that reality.

Unlike air travel which is only good between major cities, a high speed rail provides plenty of intermediate service, at a time airlines are reduced intermediate service. Huge numbers of available city pairs have the ability to bring millions of people closer together despite distance. It will increasing affordable housing stock to prospective commuters, which will be an incentive for businesses to stay or move here. The Central Valley also stands to benefit, as new businesses can set up shop and locate manufacturing in a place with a relative abundance of affordable land with reach of an urban area. The Central Valley’s unemployment is sky-high. Connecting it to the coasts with bullet trains will be a huge benefit to the entire state.

Also reflected in the same poll results: 61% majority said the bullet train would help reduce traffic on highways and at airports, and 65% said it would create jobs. The 35% who actually responded “no” to that second question are baseline, categorical opposition. Construction on the Fresno section is estimated to create 20,000 jobs which will be a major economic stimulus for a region badly in need of it. 75 years ago California faced a similar crisis. The state benefited from major infrastructure projects like Boulder Dam, the Central Valley Project, and the bay bridges. Now? We can’t even wipe our backsides with litigation and endless concern trolling.

The problem is this state needs huge infrastructure upgrades in both SoCal and NorCal but brown has continued to push for the hsr which duplicates the one area of infrastructure that is not really and issue (air travel) poor the billions of dollars into better commuter trains in the Bay Area/SoCal to relieve congestion on roads. Built more bridges and free ways, expand I5. Do things that are really needed in this state with the limited revenue available.

[eureka1]

What Nilander said. Also the carbon footprint for air travel is enormous compared to rail. The rest of the world is well ahead of us in the hsr department.

[kettlepot]

I supported HSR. I suppose I still do. However, it certainly does appear to be more and more like a boondoggle. To cut costs they could just limit the HSR to the LA to SF route, while other areas use rail feeder lines to connect.

But it isn't just airport capacity that is being taxed, the capacity of the I-5 between Grapevine and Stockton is overloaded as well. While the stretch between these two points is not urban congested, without HSR then its capacity definitely needs to be expanded from 4 lanes N/S to 6 lanes N/S. Too much time is lost when passenger cars get stuck behind slow moving trucks, especially when the trucks are traveling side by side, one at 63 mph passing the other at 60 mph, and the cars having to slow down to 63 mph for 2-3 miles while the trucks make their pass. Those 400 miles of road really should be trouble free.