If trains work so well how often do you need them?

The purpose of the spending is to create jobs now but leave us with something for later. That way when we have added debt we have something to show for it, like many of the public works created during the depression.

"Trains run daily all over the state and in an efficient manner. "

You're talking about California, right?

Trains do run all day... however these lines are not dedicated to passenger rail, therefore, passengers see delays in getting from Point A to Point B. Second, residents of the San Joaquin Valley cannot get to Southern California via train. They must take a bus from Bakersfield to LA, and then continue on to their destination.

Third... California is home to some of the busiest air corridors in the nation. There is simply not enough room in the air to get from San Diego to San Francisco. Building more runways will cost more than building the proposed high-speed rail network.

The current system, while somewhat efficient, needs to be brought into the 21st century.

Daniel, I would like to adopt you as my son for saying this. How about descriptors like boondoggle, pork-barrel,waste, fraud, and abuse?
How about our becoming the state with the overpriced high-speed train and the underfunded low-speed schools? How about their breaking the law by violating the terms of the authorizing legislation? How about a politician-designed rail system? How about cost overruns on what will be the most expensive infrastructure project in the history of the US? How about all the lying, misrepresentations, distortions, and falsified data in their promotional literature, interviews and speeches?

Don't get me started!!!!

Although I love high speed trains as I am originally from England, I think the $8 billion would be better used to building a couple of desalination plants. As this point, California needs water more than it does high speed trains.

How about coming into the 21st century...If you dont like the results of the vote on Nov 4th then you can move to AZ..with John Mccain

You don't want to invest in infrastructure? Are you just stupid?

Actually, you are all wrong. Most of this money is for intercity rail and California is in line to get a huge chunk of it. Most reporters aren't doing their homework. Most of this $8 billion is for any line that has the potential to one day get up to 110mph, which most our California lines can. Yes, HSR is a complete sham, but this money is for real trains. What's in a name? Mostly confused journalists in this case.

Jay Tulock, Vacaville

"the current system works. Trains run daily all over the state and in an efficient manner."

Have you actually taken a train in California before? Do you know how slow and inefficient it is? Rather then be stuck in an overcrowded airport terminal and putting up with surly airline crew, I will take high-speed rail over air travel anytime.

Having actually used an efficient and safe rail system myself, I have to conclude that Mr. Goldberg is clueless on the issue. I've been listening to Republicans harp for severel years now about the issue of not spending enough of our tax dollars on infrastructure and now that it's going to happen the argument is going full reverse?

Here's a thought. Traffic is at an all time high. That result is an enormous amount of production time lost to people wasting countless hours behind the wheel. It also has a huge impact on air quality and city planning. Our society has pretty much made itself completely relaiant on cars, because public transportation cannot get to where it needs to in order to fully serve the masses.

We need to redesign our cities and transportation corridors and the first step is mass transit. If we can get that right, everything else can be designed accordingly. What we cannot do is treat mass transit as an add-on. It's too big and will be far too important to future generations.

One last thing... Someone else pointed out that our current rail system is not designed specifically for passenger service. It's not safe to have people on tracks that pass through neighborhood streets and share the rails with freight liners. A high speed rail system would have to be elevated in populated areas as they are in other countries. If I'm not mistaken, that stipulation is included in the stimulus.

Infrastructure projects are different than programs in that infrastructure projects and the required investment pays dividends back to the taxpayer in the form of jobs, ease of movement, ability to participate in commerce and most of all improves the quality of life for those who reside in that area. Without infrastructure investment we wouldn't have clean water, highways to drive on, bridges to travel over, airports to land at and so on. As as the rest of the world evolves incorporating high-speed rail into their mix and reaping the benefits of that investment, it is time the USA evolve or die. I say we evolve and make the investment and reap the benefits and dividends.
Richard Frankhuizen

I took a train from Sacramento to Reno and it took 6 hours to get there. I had tickets for the 8:00 am train back, but was told that there was a freight train causing some delays and the train would most likely depart "sometime after 1:00 pm". I didn't stay to find out as I rented a car to get home. If that's the kind of effiency you are referring to, you are severely misguided.

"Furthermore, let us not forget about our current rail system."

Wow. Based on that logic, we would not have built any Interstate Highways and Expressways from the 1950's on, because State Routes and US Routes "do their job well enough".

Less than three hours on an San Francisco - San Jose to LA Express ... and no airport hassle ... that will attract passengers. Less than an hour and a half from Fresno to San Francisco ... that will attract passengers. And just as we did not shut down the State Routes and US Routes when we opened up the Expressways, the CA-Amtrak services will keep running as the HSR starts running, because the two services will complement each other.

We're going to block this in Northern CA. They are trying to run it on the old Caltrain right of way which is not a major long range transportation corridor- for purely political reasons. The citizens won't stand for it. This will go the central valley and maybe LA if you want it- not here- not to SF. It will stop in San Jose if even that.

Daniel

You sound just like Newt Gingrich when he said, "we don't need to maintain our Interstate Highways system because everyone flies between cities". This is about as intelligent as Jindal's statement "what do we need volcano monitoring for".

You have an unrealistic view of how most people travel based on an elitist attitude. The air space is so crowded we can’t ad anymore interstate flights. Your statement demonstrates that Republicans are short sited when it comes to maintaining our competitiveness.

I like the title of your blog propaganda, you sound like Bush.

Brian Leshon where is your data that the air space is so crowded that we can't add anymore interstate (did you mean intrastate) flights?

You do realize that there are different size airplanes right? If 737's are always full, the airline could use bigger airplanes.

Rail is a nice way to travel, but if you think that it'll take less time to: go downtown, get on the train, zip to SF, and then get to your hotel, is going to take less or comparable time to flying; I think you're very mistaken.

If we fixed the I-5 and raised the speed limit it would probably be cheaper and more efficient.

Thank you for the kind comments Brian Leshon. And for the record, George W. Bush is one of my role models.

koejos

My Lysdexia again you are correct I did mean Intrastate.

Many of the commercial flights traveling within the state heading towards the major metros are from smaller regional airports like Oxnard and Santa Barbara. Yes larger planes can land at SB but most flights from there to LA or SF would not be full if they use a larger plane. High speed trains would most likley have some stops in towns and cities between LA and SF so you would not necessarily have to go to Union Station to get the train.

Yes there needs to be work done on the I-5. However it is more fuel efficient to move large numbers of people by train than to have ever more cars on the road. And the trip would take half the time of driving.

Daniel

Well Bush did say "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the Propaganda." Propaganda rarely has anything to do with the truth. Uneducated, uniformed, unengaged is not a very good roll model.

I would think twice about what you call your Blog. From Wikipedia.

Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
—Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion

BL
You didn't answer my question at all about congested air routes.

There are very few flights between the outlying airports like SB and Oxnard and since it's unlikely the HS train would stop there, you wouldn't eliminate those flights anyway.

The whole point of an HS train is to make it a better alternative to flying or driving. How many stops do you think it will have between LA and SF? How big is the train going to be? Will it be able to pay for itself?

As you know, even in the middle of the high-price gas prices we just had, when metro-link was running at pretty close to full capacity, it was still unable to break-even. How much of a subsidy will the people of CA be liable for with an HS train?

Instead of a 200-300mph train, why not fix-up the I-5 for autos and buses and sell the center divider right-of-way to a private company to build whatever they want - mono-rail, HS train, vacuum tube - whatever. The state makes money and the people that use the service will pay for it.

For example, if I want to go to Sacramento, I get in my car, get there in about 5 1/2 hours and don't have to rent a car when I get there. I can choose to take a flight out of Burbank instead - costs about double and saves me about 3 - 4 hours and I have to rent a car or use taxis to get around once I get there. (flight itself is only about 30 minutes)

If an HS train can come close to any of this a private company will pay to make it happen. If not, it's going to be a money pit that we can't afford.

Also, much of the I-5 traffic is freight trucks. It must be more economical to ship this freight via truck rather than rail - so no reduction in traffic there.

I'll say this again. HS Rail is a boondoggle that'll make the big dig in Boston look like pocket change. If it's truly economically viable, let a private company take the risk not the taxpayers.

koejos

Have you ever traveled in Europe? Trains move large amounts of people at a very low cost compared to flying. Tickets are cheaper; you arrive in the center of town where local public transportation is available. It is imperative we cut back on the use of fuel by more of us using public transportation. More cars on the high are an unsustainable practice for the future.

The train route would originate in San Diego with stops in LA and Burbank. You could easily take a feeder train from Ventura or Oxnard to Burbank and get to SF faster than driving yourself. The trip from LA to SF would take 2 hours and 38 minutes which is faster than driving to LA or Burbank to catch a flight, checking in and going through security and catch a ride in to downtown San Francisco.

A high-speed rail trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles would save 320 pounds of
Carbon dioxide over the same trip by car.
By the year 2020, the high-speed rail could be expected to reduce carbon dioxide in California by 12 billion pounds. That is multiplied by the number of passengers. We must reduce our consumption to preserve our state and save money.

According to the Oakland Tribune, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco would have to build 90 new gates and five new runways in addition to 3,000 more miles of freeways to serve the expected traffic requirements.

Brian L
Have you ever lived in Europe? I didn't think so. Like here, public transportation in Europe is subsidized by the governments which makes them "cheap".

Most cities in Europe are very dense - much like New York is. If you have to go somewhere outside of the center of town, it takes quite a while to get there. You think our traffic is bad? Try Paris, London, Rome or Athens.

How many people take intercity trains in Europe vs airplane flights?

Do you really think that a HS rail will be built between LA and SF by 2020? CalTrans has been trying to finish the 710 Fwy for almost 50 years now.

You still haven't answered the question about sustainability of HS rail. How many trains, how many passengers per day - can it even be close to paying for itself? I state again, currently no government run public transportation is self-funding - not buses, not Metrolink, not the stupid subway in LA, not the various tram lines, not BART, not CalTrain. Even when running at full or near full capacity.

HS rail doesn't get a single truck off the I-5.