High speed rail for california? One group thinks so! (live, safety)

[jawny08]

Sorry, rail supporters go to narprail.org or join CA's own rail org.

[moonsister]

I live in Vegas and have family in CA and Phx. I come from the midwest where we always took the train everywhere. I was in Europe over 20 years ago and took the high speed TGV train from the south of France to Paris. May I repeat 20 YEARS AGO! Why on earth are the western states so behind in this type of puplic transportation? First of all, there are many people who don't like to fly. The expense, the hassle, delays, and just plain fear of flying. Our parents in San Diego are older and really shouldn't be driving anymore. But there are birthdays and holidays and we want to be together and we can't always get down there. If there was a train they could just hop on it and relax with no worries. Our teens that don't drive yet could go down and see their grandparents too. Having a train would reduce so many highway accidents. Many people are leaving Vegas going back to CA are tired from their weekend and may fall asleep at the wheel after 4-5 hours on the road at night. The route to Phoenix has stretches of only 2 lanes, which is to me extremely dangerous. There is no excuse in all these years not to have this type of transportation for the western states. I think about when my daughter does start driving and wants to go to CA to see her grandparents. I would much prefer her taking the train because I don't like the thought of a young girl driving alone at night having any car trouble. Sure the train would be great for the tourists and bring more people to Vegas etc. But there are people who live and work here that would really like an alternative way to get to these neighboring cities without having to fly or drive.

[kettlepot]

Rail as a form of human transport only makes sense over short or medium distances. When the distances become too large, it most people want to fly, even with the longer processing times these days to board a plane.

California is almost to the point where it makes sense to do high speed rail between LA-SD and the SF Bay Area. And since it makes sense to be a few years ahead of the curve when securing building rights, now is the time for the California rail program. However, I am very doubtful of the logic behind building rail to Las Vegas and Phoenix. I doubt the level of demand is there. The only cities of consequence between these areas are San Bernardino and Riverside, and they are both very close to LA. At least a rail link between LA and SF could have feeders from Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Visalia, and Merced. And it would be a simple proposition to plug Sacramento and Stockton into the mix too. These feeder lines would add millions of people into the potential customer base. There are not millions of people living in the Mojave Desert.

It also might make sense to connect Portland and Seattle and onto Vancouver with a high speed rail line, but after that, I don't see any other urbanized corridors in the West where it would make sense.

In the East I would love to see high speed rail transport between Portland, Maine and Richmond, Virginia. And in the end it might make sense to extend that link down to Raliegh-Durham, Atlanta, Jacksonville and Miami. And I suppose there are few connections in the Midwest that would be feasible, but the demand for a train between Denver and Chicago is always going to be small given the higher speeds of air travel. Rail is a good thing, but it's not the right solution in most parts of the country.

[EscapeCalifornia]

If high speed rail is so desperately needed, why does the taxpayer need to pay for it? Surely private companies would be willing to risk their own capital in anticipation of an enormous cash cow if the demand were there. So many people think its a great idea, but how many of them will actually utilize it enough for the project to make money or at least break even? I'm sure private investors have made that calculation and found that it wouldn't be profitable or they wouldn't be asking for taxpayer money.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

If high speed rail is so desperately needed, why does the taxpayer need to pay for it? Surely private companies would be willing to risk their own capital in anticipation of an enormous cash cow if the demand were there. So many people think its a great idea, but how many of them will actually utilize it enough for the project to make money or at least break even? I'm sure private investors have made that calculation and found that it wouldn't be profitable or they wouldn't be asking for taxpayer money.

Eh, here we go again. How about roads? Why do I have to pay for Interstate Highways or streets and roads that I never use? I say let the trucking companies take ownership of the highways, charge those drivers who need them a user fee -- and give me back the portion of my sales and property taxes that subsidize the roads.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by cre8

Eh, here we go again. How about roads? Why do I have to pay for Interstate Highways or streets and roads that I never use? I say let the trucking companies take ownership of the highways, charge those drivers who need them a user fee -- and give me back the portion of my sales and property taxes that subsidize the roads.

I pay a ton of gas tax that's supposed to pay for road maintenance but gets stolen for other purposes in this state. I also pay tolls when I choose to take the toll road.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I pay a ton of gas tax that's supposed to pay for road maintenance but gets stolen for other purposes in this state. I also pay tolls when I choose to take the toll road.

Point is this: roads, airports, seaports -- and public transportation such as passenger rail -- are all part of the transportation infrastructure. Taxes you pay for rail benefit you even if you never take a train because it takes cars off roads and mitigates traffic congestion and pollution. Taxes I pay through property ownership that goes for roads (where your gas tax payments falls short -- and they do!) pays for transportation networks that benefit me even if I never drive on those roads.

That said, if we're going to have a libertarian society of privatization, I'm game. But it has to be fair. If trains are to be private and make a profit, then roads have to be private and make a profit, too.

[jawny08]

There have been some economists that point out that the gas tax is too low becuase it doesn't include the cost of oil wars and global warming. Rail has been very effective in countries that see the value in it. This is proof that it works.

Look at it this way:

1. The world's population is booming
2. Oil is running out

Places that do not understand this are going to be caught with their pants down.

Europe views driving as a luxury. If people want to drive they pay about $4 a gallon in tax to help support investments in road/rail infrastructure. They believe that people who are part of the problem should help people that are part of the solution.

Rail needs to play a role in how we think about energy use in the future.

[pennel]

Im my opinion this is the way to go. There is going to be sooooo many people in California that it
will look and feel like China.
The freeways are already too crowded, the air quality is terrible, and it is the right thing to do to
put high speed trains.

[Jay619]

We have 3 of the top 5 most congested areas which are Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, and San Diego. We need this and it will help keep our airs cleaner, which is good for LA.. if you just look at all the traffic in california it really is obvious and clear that we do need another alternative and High speed rail is what it is. We will also be saving money from buying foreign fuel, and California's population will increase 30% in the next 20 years. Jobs will be created and we dont have to build more freeways, runways, and airport gates in major cities in cali.. we could build the high speed rail for half the price!