High speed rail for california? One group thinks so! (Los Angeles: 2013, foreclosure)

[killer2021]

Check out their promo video on the topic, it explains everything.


YouTube - California High-Speed Trains

[humboldtrat]

I'm against building the high speed train. The state is broke and we're going into a recession or maybe a depression. It will end up costing 5 times or maybe 10 times more than whatever they say it will cost and take a lot longer to build than what they say. And your children and grandchildren will be stuck with the bill .

Look at how long it has taken the state to rebuild the eastern half of the SF Bay Bridge with all its cost overruns. The bridge won't be finished until 2013. It took them only 3 years to build the WHOLE bay bridge in the 1930's.

[ferretkona]

Amtrak runs at a loss each quarter, it costs us more as tax payers each year to run it.
A high speed train would only serve special interests. Think Disney and Las Vegas. Let them build it.
Las Vegas has tried for years to get a high speed train for Vegas visitors, Vegas spends a lot of money on CA elections fighting Indian Casinos. Wonder why?

A few years ago a bill was up to build a new stadium. So taxpayer money builds a arena that the revenues go to a company/team.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

I'm against building the high speed train. The state is broke and we're going into a recession or maybe a depression. It will end up costing 5 times or maybe 10 times more than whatever they say it will cost and take a lot longer to build than what they say. And your children and grandchildren will be stuck with the bill .

Look at how long it has taken the state to rebuild the eastern half of the SF Bay Bridge with all its cost overruns. The bridge won't be finished until 2013. It took them only 3 years to build the WHOLE bay bridge in the 1930's.

Our children and grandchildren will also have a world class high speed rail network to use instead of being stuck on gridlocked highways or being forced to fly every increasingly congested airways with failing airlines.

While this is not the best time financially for the state to be spending this kind of money I think in the long run it will benefit CA. We've waited and pushed back this initiative over and over and the longer we wait the more expensive it will get and the greater likely hood it will never be built. Not building it now would be the same mistake Los Angeles made in the 1990's with it's subway, they halted construction on their subway and now they are trying to expand it again b/c they realize how much they need it. Except now it's going to cost 2-3x as much as before b/c they put it off before. They should have just kept expanding it in the first place back in the 1990's. The same thing is likely to happen if we don't start this system now.

Plus it will create lots of jobs just to build it and spur billions of dollars in development and economic growth.

Also many public works projects come in one time and on or close to budget, the Bay Bridge is obviously not an example of that. And a lot of Bay Area projects tend to come in late and over budget but many other transportation projects elsewhere around the state do not qand are successful. CA's has tackled massive public works projects like this before, i.e. the CA Aqueduct, and it can do it again.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

Amtrak runs at a loss each quarter, it costs us more as tax payers each year to run it.
A high speed train would only serve special interests. Think Disney and Las Vegas. Let them build it.
Las Vegas has tried for years to get a high speed train for Vegas visitors, Vegas spends a lot of money on CA elections fighting Indian Casinos. Wonder why?

A few years ago a bill was up to build a new stadium. So taxpayer money builds a arena that the revenues go to a company/team.

Amtrak isn't high speed rail or competitive with driving and flying.

A high speed train would serve one of the busiest air routes in the country, SF-LA. What special interests are traveling between Northern and Southern CA? There are millions of families and business people that travel up and down the state, those are hardly "special interests". This high speed rail plan has nothing to do with Vegas btw.

[NorthernCalifornia]

Building this kind of infrastructure is exactly what you do when "the state is broke and the economy is in a recession."

Infrastructure spurs economic activity, directly employs people and improves quality of life.

High-speed rail in California makes so much sense it's crazy to argue against it. Saying "we can't afford it" demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how these things are funded and how much California ALREADY spends on transportation each year.

I read the con arguments on the Prop 1 from Tom McClintock who says "over the life of the bond it will cost a family of four in california $2,000!" like that's outrageous or something. It's a 30-year bond and he's talking about FOUR people. That's $16 per year per person.

Sixteen dollars per year.

[elousv]

So they kill 20 something people at 42MPH, how many die at 220MPH?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by elousv

So they kill 20 something people at 42MPH, how many die at 220MPH?

so you're trying to compare a commuter train that shares single tracks with freight trains to a double tracked, grade separated, high speed rail with it's own separate right of way? apples to oranges......

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by sav858

so you're trying to compare a commuter train that shares single tracks with freight trains to a double tracked, grade separated, high speed rail with it's own separate right of way? apples to oranges......

Twenty-five years from now, when the states population is pushing 50 million the intended route will be far more built up, and the expense of clearing out tens of thousands of homes and businesses will kill the project. Best to do double track, grade separated, separate right-of-way project NOW before it becomes impossible.

Even more than California, the Northeast needs a high speed train, but now it's impossible. It would cost a 100 billion dollars to buy the needed right of way and displace tens of thousands of people.

Build it now - before it's too late!


PS - I would just hope that they can build feeder lines from Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, and Stockton to tap into the main trunk line. If you have driven the I-5 between the Grapevine and Stockton you will already see a freeway in the middle of nowhere that has a density of traffic on par for any urban area from all the people driving between the Bay Area and LA-SD.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by NorthernCalifornia

High-speed rail in California makes so much sense it's crazy to argue against it. Saying "we can't afford it" demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how these things are funded and how much California ALREADY spends on transportation each year.

I understand "how these things are funded". It's called piling more debt on top of existing debt. Someday, if they keep passing these bond measures, most of the state budget will be needed to service this debt, with little left over for the everyday running of the state. Not that I care, since these are 30 year bonds and I might not be around then, but our children who have no say in this will be handed the bill when they are adults. This in a state that is broke and can't pass a budget on time.

Maybe some of the people who bought homes that are now in foreclosure should have said "we can't afford it" or maybe they were demonstrating "a lack of knowledge of how these things are funded".

As for the railroad, why not fix Amtrak by imroving the roadbed and making the tracks more straight and level so trains could go 100 mph or maybe faster. The right-of-way is already there and maybe some provision could be made to share the tracks with freight trains or build new tracks next to the existing tracks. Maybe they could convert to electric trains.