George wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:40 PM:If times were good and gas tax money was being spent enhancing the freeways, I would consider voting for the high speed train. However, times are not good and our gas tax money has been hijacked for non-freeway projects. I have no confidence that our planners will be able to fulfill the needs and wishes of the voters. I'll be voting "no".

Reardon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:04 PM:We taxpayers must eventually feel like Charlie Brown looking at the football held by Lucy! How often can we be fooled?

Why haven't they widened 78? wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:25 PM:This project should have come after they widened 78! I don't see it taking people out of their cars except maybe for students at SMSU who don't want to hassle with the parking.

JAFO wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:58 PM:The thing is, the way I look at it something will have to be done one way or another. The airports are becoming overtaxed and you know that the first flights to get cut will be the local flights within the state, which will push more people onto the road. We've already pretty much voted down expanding SD International, The other airports are feeling the same cramps... So adding air travel is out of the question, we'll most likely start seeing fewer intrastate flights. I myself don't want to put much more mopney into adding freeways and expanding freeways because I'm not seeing a benefit. There are some projectsI've seen benefit from, and others I haven't. Adding more lanes to a 14-lane-wide I-15 is ridiculous, especially when the traffic on the 15 is worse than ever. What it comes down to is WE NEED A THIRD TRANSPORTATION OPTION to get between cities in this state. The projections don't matter, the costs won't inflate as much if people don't fight and protest it (which drags the project out and causes more inclusions to be made which boosts the price). At the rate we're going our roads and airports will be at capacity soon and people will be crying foul when the airports refuse to host local flights and the grapevine takes 10 hours to cross. The rail project might not be the perfect solution, but I think it's the best proposed additional option we've had so far.

Tom wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:23 AM:MThe major difference between the California and NE corridor is that the California high speed trains will run at over 190mph virtually all the time, offering a journey time substantially quicker than road or rail.
The NE corrdior trains have an average speed of ~70mph, barely competitive with road, and slower than air.
That is why the Californian train will capture a *far* larger share of the market than the NE corridor.
Yes, this project is expensive - but it works out cheaper than providing the same capacity on the highways or at the airports.

Hitoshi wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:44 AM:It seems that Americans are still enjoying cheap gas price of $3. It will go up in coming years. At that time, it will be too late to do anything.
Like crickets were enjoying summer weather and laughing at ants working hard. But when cold winter came, they could not bear the cold.

Walt wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:52 AM:Aeronautical engineer that I am and one time pilot I believe there is a role for High Speed Rail. That is in direct NON-STOP competition with the airlines in the main San Diego to LAX, (not Union Terminal), in LA, and LAX to the Bay area. Under current security rules it will compete in schedule, (although airline type security will have to creep in). It will unload the overcrowded airways and terminals. The plan Mr. Rider correctly objects to is a gigantic rail network for California with high speed feeders to the several stop main lines. Promising to serve more towns gets more votes.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:50 AM:I recommend one read a short REASON Foundation article by Adam Summers, the fellow I quoted in my column.
http://reason.org/commentaries/summers_20071030.shtml

As to roads not being a solution because they are congested, perhaps this factoid from that article will be of interest:

'From 1977 to 2006, the state's population increased over 55 percent and the number of vehicle-miles traveled on state highways increased over 128 percent, yet the number of lane-miles built has increased only about seven percent. No wonder congestion has increased so dramatically. This is simple supply and demand.'

George wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:52 AM:Gas is not cheap at $3 a gallon. Gas is cheap at $1 a gallon.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:01 AM:The image of high speed 190 MPH rail is appealing, but largely a fiction. Because politics will require stops at various cities along the way, there will be no 'high speed' rail in Southern California.

In our region, the train will start and stop, start and stop. While the average 'high speed' Southern California rail would slightly exceed the speed of a car, one would have to expend time and money getting to and from the train stations (plus parking costs). Hence the overall trip would take considerably longer, be far less convenient and, even with the massive subsidies, probably cost more than driving.

Derek wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:06 AM:High speed rail would be nice, but we don't even have a regular rail link from Los Angeles to San Francisco that's time-competitive with driving. Shouldn't trains be faster because they don't have to deal with automobile traffic or traffic lights?

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:18 AM:We have plenty of air capacity, using secondary airports. For instance, the Carlsbad airport is likely to become a significant in-state commuter airline facility.

Perhaps equally as important, there is a growing trend in the business community to handle meetings via the Internet, saving money and increasing productivity. As the cost of travel (ALL travel) continues to rise, this alternative 'meeting' method should accelerate.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:19 AM:The Eastern corridor has tightly packed cities that were laid out before the advent of the car. Hence the rail stations deliver passengers not too far from where they need to go.

In California our cities are already built around the car, so the population 'centers' are much less tightly packed, with most people living and working far from train stations, and thus less prone to use trains than on the East Coast.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 8:24 AM:Here's another insightful quote from the Summers article I referenced earlier:

'The Los Angeles-San Francisco market is expected to be the system's largest revenue generator. The trip is expected to take about 2½ hours by high-speed rail, yet you can get a cheaper ticket on Southwest Airlines and the trip takes only about an hour.'

Scott wrote on Jan 9, 2008 9:27 AM:The important thing to note is that this is not "new" or futuristic technology, it is "off the shelf" high speed rail equipment, that is currently in use in Europe and China. It will not cost substantially more than "regular" Amtrak routes to build.

The big cost will be building new tracks, which needs to be done in most of the route to accomodate 150 MPH trains. And string up the catenary wire (it's an electric train.)

We will have more LA to SF this year, when they resurrect the Coast Daylight, which is on the docket at Amtrak.

Extending the San Joaquin route from Bakersfield down to Lancaster would also help: At Lancaster people could switch to a Metrolink train and continue down to L.A. That solution would be MUCH cheaper.

Reardon wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:28 AM:What we desperately need is accountability, because politicians and "planners" can make outrageous claims as to coast and performance, with no accountability at the end. We need a law that places politicians and planners jobs, salaries, and retirement at risk when the "plan" doesn't work to specs! Call it "You bet your ..." plan. Right now, they make absolutely outrageous claims, count on everyone forgetting their claims when reality bites, and the politicians and planners are off on another project, saying, �Forget what I claimed before, I have this NEW terrific idea on how to��

Thomas B. wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:47 AM:I am sold on an additional mode to travel in this state. I�ll support this bond measure. Having California HSR would position this state to compete globally with emerging industrialized nations and other urban areas. It�ll be good for business, for jobs, and quality of life.

HSR Trains are more efficient. They require less space, emit less pollution, and can accommodate many more people. Plus, they are sexy.

European countries, Japan, Taiwan and China have chosen not to stick their heads in the sand and ignore implications of non-stop road building. I don�t think we should either.

JF wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:19 AM:Gotta say I agree with Richard here. (And that doesn't happen often!) I just looked at schedules. A Southwest flight to Sacramento can be had as cheaply as $59. It takes an hour and a half. An Amtrak train to Sac takes 11 hours, costs $63 and involves a bus. Imagine that, a railroad town like Sac that you can't get to on a railroad!

If we're going to spend $10 billion, how about we spend it to better fire protection. (Sorry, Richard, couldn't resist)

Now a trolley down the I-15 corridor? That I'd use.

Reardon wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:42 AM:To Scott: The Sprinter is off the shelf technology, but somehow it grew like Topsy from $60 million to $477 million, and the damn thing has yet to carry a single paying passenger! Worse yet, everyone concerned continues to collect their salary! I have a suggestion: Start a foundation to buy Lionel train sets for those who love trains, and stop buying full-size trains that don't work, for HUGE price overruns -- spending other people's money! (Lavishly! And it STLL DOES NOT WORK!)

Likes to argue wrote on Jan 9, 2008 2:37 PM:Richard likes to argue... he had to be one of those kids who didn't get his way...I say to you Mr. Rider What do you see as the solution in the future? You don't seem to have many solutions but many doubts (I almost would say you sound like a lib but you like to cut taxes) We cannot build out freeways and roads forever! will you and everyone else live in their car when traveling from north county to SD? sooner or later the train will be the viable option... we just need to be able to be patient. Projects get overrun for many reasons and you neglect to mention the biggest... environmentalist and haters! (see sunrise powerlines) all the NIMBY's in the world think only of themselves not of community or even localy. So we get it you don't like the trains and would never ride one and don't like you money spent on them... I dont like many things my money gets spent on but if it helps the future society I think we must look to the future. Just me I am positive though. Like the ant story above too!

Walt wrote on Jan 9, 2008 2:49 PM:For JF; According to SANDAG better than an I-15 trolley will be the Bus Rapid Transit line operating on the $1billion toll managed lanes. Enough cars will be diverted to crowded regular lanes so operating at about 3/4 or less lane capacity buses and a few cars can enjoy freeflow travel. No word yet on the bus routings, but they should have better destination diversity than a trolley.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:23 PM:'Likes to argue' ... I've already made clear the alternative -- roads. More of 'em, and more lanes. To say they don't work is to deny the fact that we haven't been building 'em for decades. See post above.

Contrary to what people like to think, California's population is not expanding like it did in the past. Moreover, the more productive middle and upper class (the rubes who pay the taxes) have for several years been a net OUT-migration group. Raise taxes more, and accelerate this self-defeating trend. And mark my words -- build the useless bullet trains, and taxes WILL rise.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 9, 2008 3:24 PM:Not mentioned in my column is the fact that the outlay doesn't stop with the bonds. Far from it.

Part of the government projected fiction is that the users of the train will pay the operating costs. But the silly passenger projections are far, far too high. NEVER has 'fare box" revenue paid the operating costs of public rail transit.

TheGunny wrote on Jan 9, 2008 4:57 PM:Ya know up in LA, when they expanded the I-105 they put light rail in between the North and South lanes. This could have been done from Escondido to the line in Mission Valley. Now the residents would have the ability to ride rail from all major area of the county.

My 2c

George wrote on Jan 9, 2008 5:52 PM:During SANDAG's public meetings before the Regional Transportation Plan was approved, I asked about a rail solution down the center of I-15 from Escondido to downtown San Diego. The answer from the planners was "it's too hilly, and we'd have to build some bridges that would be environmentally unfriendly." So there will be no rail in the I-15 corridor and they won't be adding any regular lanes to the freeway but they will be opening an expanded toll road in that area Real Soon Now!

Duane wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:30 PM:Those that keep depending on unlimited usage of fossil fuels are destined to become a fossil themselves.

Paul wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:48 PM:Having just spent 6 years building the High Speed railway in Taiwan I would disagree with your overall argument. America needs to be forward thinking if an energy/climate crisis is coming in the next 20-30 years. If you build it they will come!!!! Costs can be controlled if the contracts and properly managed and implemented, that has been shown in Japan, Taiwan and even Europe.

Walt wrote on Jan 10, 2008 10:13 AM:For Paul. In Taiwan how did the developed densities compare with areas where the Ca. HST would go?
We discus rail, and other forms of transportation, including roads, as themseves the end product. They are just one importent element in producing a properous economy, and preferred lifestyle. Thus the dominance of roads which provides fast convenient on demand doorstep to doorstep support for goods, sevices, and mostly individual travelers. HS rail and other forms of mass transit are usually just one leg of a journey which typically requires 2-3 trips to wrong destinations followed by transfers to other vehicles that come closer to the real destination. Similarly HSR if it is non-stop as the airlines between established hubs, at distances becoming marginal for autos, will be used. But as a modern milk train to all hamlets along the way its speed increment becomes of little value.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 10, 2008 12:10 PM:Gunny, the "ability" to use the train is far different than the actual train usage. Empirical evidence is overwhelming that 2 additional lanes for cars would carry MANY times more people than the rails going down the highway right of way.

And, unlike the road, the train will be an annual cash drain because of the operating costs. Most light rail fare box revenues pay at most 30% of the annual operating costs. Not to mention depreciation costs.

Buses, which use the asphalt "tracks" already laid down, handle those who wish public transit. Furthermore buses are much more flexible when it comes to getting passengers closer to their desired destination, and can be shifted to handle changing needs or special events.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 10, 2008 12:47 PM:Today in the business section of papers you'll find reports of the airlines REDUCING the number of flights. The claimed need -- that airports will shortly be incapable of handling burgeoning air usage -- ain't happenin'. And as energy costs (by ANY mode of transportation) grow, travel demand, especially for longer trips, will likely grow slowly, if not plateau or even diminish.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 10, 2008 12:54 PM:Gunny, the "ability" to use the train is far different than the actual train usage. Empirical evidence is overwhelming that 2 additional lanes for cars would carry MANY times more people than the rails going down the highway right of way.

And, unlike the road, the train will be an annual cash drain because of the operating costs. Most light rail fare box revenues pay at most 30% of the annual operating costs. Not to mention depreciation costs.

Buses, which use the asphalt "tracks" already laid down, handle those who wish public transit. Furthermore buses are much more flexible when it comes to getting passengers closer to their desired destination, and can be shifted to handle changing needs or special events.

Reardon wrote on Jan 10, 2008 4:07 PM:State agencies are "considering" CRIMINAL charges in addition to the continuing huge fines, and STOP orders against the Sprinter. The line is already not just hundreds of % over their estimate, and not carrying any passengers (having been delayed five or more times -- and now delayed INDEFINETLY). If this is not criminal, it should be. There is not a rail system in the country with sufficient ridership to pay the bill, and certainly Sprinter will not be the first…it will only be the latest rail fiasco. If the proponents of rail would just be satisfied with their Lionel sets, and leave the taxpayers alone, we would all be better off!

Derek wrote on Jan 10, 2008 5:23 PM:How many freeways in the country are self-sufficient?

JAFO wrote on Jan 11, 2008 1:13 AM:Richard Wrote: "Likes to argue' ... I've already made clear the alternative -- roads. More of 'em, and more lanes. To say they don't work is to deny the fact that we haven't been building 'em for decades. See post above. "

HOW MANY MORE ROADS YOU WANNA BUILD? Go check out how wide the I-15 already is, how wide it's about to be... Drive through the San Fernando Valley on the I-5 which has a separate freeway just for the dang semi traffic! THEY CAN'T BE FEASIBLY EXPANDED WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY DESTROYING QUALITY OF LIFE! I Can't step outside without seeing asphalt down here, and yet you want to add, well, I guess over 150% MORE roads to the mess?!?! What do you want our state to look like; "Welcome to California, the Asphalt state"???? While adding more roads, wider roads would be nice to get people to move it can't be done. There's no more space, at least where it's needed, to add sufficient road capacity... Please give me an example as to WHERE to place your proposed roads!

Next: You mentioned utilizing regional airports for local commuter flights. This in and of itself will necessitate at LEAST 10 Billion dollars in upgrades to the airports to handle the safety and capacity upgrades, and would yield no better results than the proposed HSR while once again degrading quality of life when regional jets start flying into once happy, small communities. You also mentioned a one hour flight time from LAX to San Jose... Does that include time spent finding a parking space, checking in, waiting in line at security, getting a wand shoved into every oriface you consider sacred, sitting in a cramped airplane on the tarmac for an hour BEFORE takeoff (as well as in flight and after landing while waiting for a gate... and those short hop flights never turn off the fasten seatbelt signs) and finally time waiting to claim your checked luggage? My last flight from San Diego to San jose was at 11:30 AM. I checked in at 9:00, and finally claimed my luggage and sat down in my Friend's car at around 3: 30 PM... Do you think the train will be much worse time-wise?

As I said before, plenty of holes can be punched into the HSR proposal, and you can keep doing that all you wish... but truth be told it's the only REASONABLE idea I've heard yet to help move people through the state. It won't solve all our problems, and thus isn't a cure-all, but they have a route mapped out that disturbs residents as little as possible, is backed by the conservation groups like the Sierra club, they're discussing bids with contractors, and have a basis layed out that people understand and is based upon already existing infrastructure, and successful ideas from around the world. Quite honestly it's a better solution than your "roads. More of 'em, and more lanes" that you plan to just throw anywhere, regardless of whose home is already there, how many people it will affect, and how little help it will be.

By the way, San Diego Trolley yields a farebox recovery of nearly 70% while maintaining an affordable fare that's competitive with other, not quite as efficient systems. It's rated as the best Light Rail System in North America because of that. When it's done right things can be successful. You need to get off your duff and realize your line of thinking is contributing to the problem, not helping it, and propose an idea that makes sense and actually has a chance at being successful. Otherwise stop lashing out at something you don't even understand.

JAFO wrote on Jan 11, 2008 1:24 AM:Currently our railroads make more frequent stops than the trains on the Northeast corridor. Yes, this is the result of "Urban Sprawl" which is much more prevalant here. For those worried the trains would stop too much and slow it down, please think for a minute. The Northeast Corridor has 3 levels of service; Commuter, Regional, and Express. Commuter trains travel short distances at low speeds and stop frequently at about every small city they come through. Regional trains skip a few commuter stops, making one stop in a specific region, usually whichever commuter stop in about 3 or 4 stops is the busiest. Lastly Express service only stops at the major Cities, such as Boston, Providence, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, and Washington DC. Likewise an Express train out here would probably stop at San Diego, Riverside (If routed up the 15), Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno (or not) Stockton, and Sacramento/San Francisco. a regional service would add stops at, say, Poway, Escondido, Murrieta, Ontario, Pomona, Burbank, and various other less major cities, and finally commuter trains would also stop at Old Town SD, University City, Miramar, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, and all the individual communities along the route rather than cities.

Don't worry, there IS a plan. That's why it's time for it to go to vote.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 11, 2008 8:54 AM:Derek, there are three cost components for a mode of transportation:
1. Cost of building
2. Operating cost
3. Depreciation (repair and perhaps replacement cost)

Consider each factor in turn:
1. Rail costs (including road crossings) more to build per mile than a freeway lane.
2. Rail has high operating costs whereas a freeway has essentially zero operating cost.
3. Rail and it's rolling stock depreciates faster and needs repair and replacement far sooner than a road, and costs FAR more to repair.

Bottom line: Rail costs taxpayers 10 to 15 times more per passenger mile than do cars on roads. Rail costs at least five times more per passenger mile than do subsidized buses.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 11, 2008 9:15 AM:JAFO, you state that 'My last flight from San Diego to San jose was at 11:30 AM. I checked in at 9:00, and finally claimed my luggage and sat down in my Friend's car at around 3:30 PM.'

You're kidding, right? You show up at an airport 2.5 hours in advance, and claim it's necessary to do so to catch a California hop? When I fly to Sacramento AND BACK in one day, I show up at the airport an hour in advance, if that.

You claim that you took a 1.5 hour flight to San Jose, and then it took 2 hours after you landed to get your bags? And you present your story as is the typical experience??

George wrote on Jan 11, 2008 10:16 AM:The answer to the question "how many more roads do you want to build?" is: enough to make up for 20 years of planning neglect plus projections to handle future population growth. This will reduce emissions and encourage environmentally-friendly low-density growth while reducing travel time and enhancing our quality of life.

Danny B. wrote on Jan 12, 2008 10:01 AM:If you do the math, the bond that needs to be approved by voters on the 2008 Ballot is a cost of $10 billion. Divide that by California's population of 38 billion and that would only be about $3.80 per person. I think we can all sacrifice about $4.00 for a high-speed rail system that would link California.

Walt wrote on Jan 12, 2008 11:48 AM:Certainly mass transit POTENTIALLY can carry large loads efficiently. It was derived from trains and trucks intended to carry heavy cargo, coal, grain, sacks of potatoes, iron ore, etc, etc, long distances to a few destinations with few stops. But urban transportation needs fast flexible on demand travel for busy productive individuals to many random destinations. Thus transit vehicles carry only 25% capacity, and lose potential energy/pollution advantage. Roads deliver about 100 million passenger miles daily in San Diego. Mass transit about 1.8 million. Daily travel on roads grows in less than two years as much as the entire transit system carries in the first place. Why spend more $billions for super Lionels, tunnels under UTC, etc, when even doubling transit use is meaningless in the big picture? Example a 22 mile Sprinter that carries, optimistically fewer new riders,(small "r"), than one tenth a freeway lane? Trolleys can claim success only on the original 16 mile line between downtown and the Mexican Border. The unusual Mexican worker demographics fill most rush hour trains, and it equals more than a freeway lane. BUT, spending several $billion, TransNet has expanded the trolley to about 50 miles. The added miles, in more typical San Diego communities suffering from congestion carry fewer than the original line. Danny B. Isn't it more like $263/person. Amortizing that over a 50 year life with no maintenace,operating expenses, etc, is about $3,000. And $10 billion is just the bait.

Richard Rider wrote on Jan 14, 2008 4:32 PM:...
As Walt points out above, the correct CA population is 38 MILLION, which divided into $10 billion comes to $263 a person -- not counting the interest which essentially doubles the cost over the life of the bonds.

And that's just the down payment on an uncapped spending program of gargantuan proportions.

Given that the Sprinter came in at EIGHT TIMES the projected costs, and given that every public rail project in our country has come in WAY over projections, it's a conservative assumption that the real cost will be double the current $40 billion claimed outlay. That $80 billion comes to over $2,100 for every man, woman and child.

Plus interest. LOTS of interest.

But wait, there's more. The ridership projections are insanely high. Hence there will be an 'unexpected' (unexpected by rail proponents, that is) annual deficit taxpayer expense that could exceed half a billion dollars.

Reardon wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:48 PM:I am not an expert on transportation, but I do know more than a bit about computers. When we had 8 bit computers that was the same as freeway lanes -- 8 of them. When we wanted to get more data, we figured out that if we wanted to shove more data through the computer we could either increase the speed limit, or increase the number of lanes. We did both -- but you can certainly shove more data through 64 lanes of data (64 bit) than you can through 8.

Steve wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:31 PM:Richard is right, guys. The benefit projections are based on wildly optimistic "best case" scenarios and we have actual cases that show what we may reasonably expect. For example, AMTRAK from Chatsworth to San Diego takes about 3 1/2 hours and the train only hits its maximum speed (89 mph) in the stretch between San Clemente and Oceanside. Only the most convenient runs are full, and those only between major stops. Likewise for the cost projections (as for the sphincter), but we don't need to guess about those, the numbers are right in front of us. As for the roads, in many areas the right-of-way is already there, but unused, as with the 52 out to Santee or my favorite example, compliments of Governor moonbeam, the 118 thru Simi Valley in Ventura county. The right-of-way for at least four lanes in both directions has been there for at least 25 years now, but ...

Walt wrote on Jan 15, 2008 7:01 AM:For Reardon and Steve. The auto stream on highways is like a compressible fluid. So by increasing its density through less separation between cars the throughput can be at least doubled. Double bit rate if you will. In the real world and mixed flow that isn't easy,(electronic tailgating), and may require dedicated lanes. (I-15 managed lanes are a good opportunity for some experimentation). But we are only working on bits (no pun), and pieces, and the total system aspects ignored. There are no technical or economic reasons not to double deck. Just prejudice, and in the view of some, aesthetics, although elevation it is OK for trolleys. The anti automobile crowd doesn't want to see solutions which would upset Transit Oriented Developments. BTW: In the real world freeways use LESS land per traveler mile than mass transit. Steve's comments about Amtrak illustrate what happens when the train becomes a milk run. A few years ago for the "fun" of it I used public transportation for a 2 hour meeting near LAX. 14 hours up and back from Tierrasanta. Even then I drove to/from Solana Beach.

To Walt Wrote wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:04 PM:Please 14 hours??? c'mon ... really... a little fudging there NO???? MOre roads and double decking are not the answers and that is not from an anti car person... I love my car. BUT aren't you forgeting other things??? GAS, SMOG, Seeing double decked highways???? How about the maniacs that drive on the highways and clog them with accidents??? are we not remembering that is how we got to where we are??? think about it folks... the future will be a lot easier when you can hop onto a train and go to LAX in 2 hours then try and go on the freeway and HOPE that nobody gets in an accident in front of you... Once again think of future pedestrians and drivers.

Ditto TheGunny wrote on Jan 15, 2008 7:36 PM:The original plan was for the Sprinter to go to North County Fair. Why while expanding the I-15 freeway they didn't leave a deck for future railroad operations, both high-speed and light, is beyond me. One of the reasons for the Sprinter being built was to be a feeder for the high-speed rail that was supposed to go through Escondido.

Mr. Rider and others of his opinion must have homes far away from these proposed 30 lane freeways they are proposing (forget double-decking in earthquake prone California), because the huge eminent domain factor would rid many people of their homes. As far as Mr. Rider's assertion that "Rail has high operating costs whereas a freeway has essentially zero operating cost", I guess all those highway patrolmen and Caltrans work for free.

All this being said, I probably will not vote for the high speed rail bond solely because the money will never actually reach the project. That is why I didn't vote for either TransNet measures. Lots of promises - hardly any results.

Walt wrote on Jan 17, 2008 11:40 AM:For "To Walt": Try the LA trip. Talk with the driver of nearly empty bus out of Union Terminal who lives in Oceanside but drives back and forth because it's faster. If double decking not safe shall we tear down the muli-deck interchanges? Maniac suppression not my field.

michael wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:06 PM:Being an outsider who has come to california to visit old family (my dad moved us out of the congested LA region THIRTY years ago for that exact reason!), I can tell you that transportation in urban california is the laughingstock of the rest of the country and the developed/ing world. To say that you can add more lanes to solve your deeply rooted troubles only proves everybody right of their opinion on the doomed mentality of california drivers. That mentality was quite glamorous and was envied by many 40+ years ago, but trust me, it's not anymore (with maybe the exception of some very rich oil men out there...). People around the world are finding joy in transportation systems being built using the lessons learned from california of what NOT to do (that is unless we're still trying to dig ourselves out of the hole we dumbly followed you into). I do love the state of california, her people, and their progressiveness for leading our country and world on so many fronts, but a vote turning down such a no-brainer investment that you (and we as a country...where's the federal assistance?!?!?) can't afford NOT to fund would produce some serious doubters in the room and have people laughing...this time in disbelief.

Mike wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:34 AM:Well I just got back from Spain where I took the AVE train from Madrid to Barcelona, a trip comparable with LA-SF.

I arrived at Madrid Atocha station 15 minutes prior to departure, endured no metal detector, no "fasten your seatbelts and seatbacks and traytables," no "stow electronics," and no baggage claim. The train left the station precisely on-time and arrived at Barcelona Sants station 15 minutes early. I was in my hotel room 20 minutes later.

Those of you who are naysayers are ignoring an important fact: HSR is already a fact of life in the rest of the industrialized world and it works very well. This isn't an experimental, unproven technology. The Japanese have had it for 40 years. Trains run full, they run fast, they run on-time, and they run clean.

There is enough experience with systems such as these that the budget seems reasonable and the concept seems not only a good idea, but necessary.

Luis wrote on Apr 2, 2008 1:33 AM:Bravo Mike! Exacly what I would have said! We will build this no matter what and 20 to 40 years down if your still alive you will be thankfull that we ignored your foolish comments of tackling trash about HSR! All you naysayers will see what a big mistake you would have made preventing this project from being built! Like Mike says "This isn't an experimental, unproven technology" It's already been used and that's how they can project the result from learning from these other systems!

Richard wrote on Apr 27, 2008 10:05 PM:Mike and Luis, high speed rail technology has never been questioned here. It's the economic assumptions that are ludicrous.

EVERY government passenger rail project in America has GROSSLY underestimated its cost, and grossly overestimated its usage. The Sprinter is only the latest and most egregious example. Yet I'm sure you both would consider the Sprinter a rousing success, facts be damned.

Our state's population has stabilized, and our population density is only a fraction of what is found in Europe, let alone in packed Japan.

We may build it, and you'll tell us it's a success (perhaps because the pretty trains run on time), but it will cost us dearly for the relatively few passengers it will carry.

JOHN wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:29 PM:Richard, come up with a new line already. ALL transportation infrastructure costs money to build, and maintain...roads and rail. Name one road that generates revenue, much less one that has repaid any part of the construction expense. The problem with you right-wing libertarians is that you want to turn this country into a third world country. Public libraries and recreation facilities don't generate income should we get rid of them too? Public infrastructure is just that, to serve the public. Why don't you hold any other mode of transport to the same standard? How many airports has United built? Are they going to pay for all of this expansion you talk about...seeing as they fired 1000 pilots today I doubt it. Looks like the tax payers are gonna float the bill...Now explain how that is money better spent!