It's Time To Bring High-Speed Rail To California

With record high gas prices, growing congestion on our roads and airports, global warming and environmental concerns, and an economic situation crying out for new jobs and growth, there has never been a better time to begin work on a statewide high-speed rail system than right now.

Thankfully, California's voters will have the opportunity to make this happen in just a few short weeks. Proposition 1A on the November ballot will get the ball rolling on a statewide network of high-speed trains that will revolutionize the way we travel throughout our state.

It's no surprise that both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle have endorsed Proposition 1A in recent days, since a high-speed rail network that runs from San Francisco and Sacramento in the north to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south will produce major benefits for our state:

• Take pressure off gas prices and lower our dependence on foreign oil. With skyrocketing energy prices and middle class families struggling to fill their gas tanks at the pump, we must find ways to conserve energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. High-speed rail trains use only 1/3 the energy per person as airplane travel, and 1/5 the energy of a similar length car trip.
  
  
• Reduce pollution and improve our environment. According to the California High Speed Rail Authority, a statewide HSR system would lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions of 12 billion pounds a year by 2030 as people choose rail over dirtier forms of transportation like cars and planes.
  
  
• Create high-paying jobs and grow our state's economy. A recent study revealed that HSR would not only benefit our environment, but would improve our economy as well. HSR would create an estimated 450,000 high paid, permanent jobs in California.
  
  
• Reduce traffic and congestion on our roads and in our airports. California's population is expected to rise significantly in the coming decades, putting more strain on our already-crowded transportation systems. A statewide HSR system would eliminate the need to build 2,970 miles of new highway lanes and 91 new airport gates, which will otherwise be necessary to handle California's growing transportation needs.
  
  

The benefits of building a statewide HSR system are clear, but it's only with widespread support that we'll be able to invest in this advanced technology and bring an efficient transportation system to California. I've long been a supporter of bringing high-speed rail to California, so I hope you'll help me build support for Proposition 1A. Below are a few helpful resources about bringing high-speed rail to California:

California High Speed Rail Authority
Californians for High Speed Trains
California Rising: High-Speed Rail For California
California High Speed Rail Blog

California has long been a leader that sets an example for the rest of our country. With Proposition 1A we once again have the chance to lead America, this time in the development of our country's first truly high-speed rail system -- and it couldn't come at a better time.

California State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-SF) is Chair of the Legislative High-Speed Rail Caucus.

Comments

[GarySe7en]

(Continued)

I would also like to point out that there is a cost to doing nothing, which is worse and worse traffic at our airports, roads and highways. This wastes time, and time is worth money. So the alternatives in the face of growing population would be highway and airport expansion, which would, guess what, like this train, cost billions of dollars but would do nothing for our oil dependence. Also, why don't you go talk to the people who live next to all these freeways and airports about how you want to expand there and see what they think about that. You could use eminent domain to take their property anyways, but oh yeah that costs money to. So my point is, yes this train costs money, but so do the less efficient alternatives and so does doing nothing.

Finally, about that whole Wendel Cox nonsense the Reason Foundation sponsored, this same man also recently said that smart growth urban development was what was really behind the financial crisis. That is utter nonsense, and anything this man writes should be taken with a grain of salt.

As I have asked detractors of this train project before, come back when you have some new material and please will one of you give some real alternative ideas. I've asked several times, but typically these anti-train posts are hit and run and the posters rarely respond to anyone.

[GarySe7en]

(Continued)

It's true that gas is more expensive in Europe, but even the small increases here comparatively have already resulted in lower vehicle miles traveled. Our antiquated Amtrak system is boasting record ridership despite it's short comings. You also point out transit use in Japan and Europe is "MUCH" higher, which is true because well duh, they have more transit there to ride on. As long as we keep our transit system floundering while we dump money into highway projects, of course our transit ridership will be lower comparatively. That's like expecting more people to drive without ever building roads. And where we do have transit systems, ridership has been going up, even in Los Angeles the land of freeways.

Finally, you claim it will not have the environmental impact that proponents speak of. Lets look at this. Cars and planes account for a significant portion of our air pollution, in California especially, not to mention the economic drain of requiring so much fuel, so much in fact that the sate of California burns more gasoline than all of China (granted we have much cleaner emissions). This train, which would replace a many air and car trips is all electric and has the potential to be run all wind and solar, which is currently being explored. Less pollution, and less oil dependence. So whether you look at this from an environmental angle or an economic one, in the long run this train makes sense.

(To be continued in next post)

[GarySe7en]

As usual one of you people show up about a day after anything positive about the train is posted with the reason foundation bogus information. It's like clock work. Lets deconstruct your faulty arguments one by one.

First of all you claim proponents are saying this train will be faster, carry more people and be more efficient with lower fares than where else in the world. This is false. No one is saying that, what is being said is that it will be comparable to existing high-speed lines, and the one in Spain from Madrid to Barcelona is the closest to resembling the distance and population density of California. This Spanish train by the way is fairly new, and in only 6 months has already taken 30% of traveling market share between those two cities.

You claim that population density does not warrant the train, and yet the air corridor between LA and SF is one of the busiest short corridors in the country. And one that is not very profitable for airlines due to the economies of scale making longer flights more cost effective. France, which has one of the most financially successful high-speed train networks in the world, is actually about equal with the economy of California, and by 2030 with our rapid population growth and their stagnation, we will be just as populace.

(To be continued in next post)

[adriantm]

The problem is that the current high speed rail plan will only accomplish these things if the very rosiest of possible scenarios. They are saying they will build a train that is faster, carries more passengers, is more efficient, and will have lower fares than any ohter high speed train in the world.

Really? A train through the agricultural central valley of California will carry many more passengers than in Europe and Japan where gas prices are MUCH higer, densities are MUCH higher and transit use is MUCH higher. Ger serious.

This report at http://www.reason.org/ps370/ shows that this rail plan will cost a lot more than they say and will not have the big impacts on riders and the environment they say.

[GarySe7en]

I want to thank you greatly for your support of this rail project. I sincerely hope for the sake of California's future that voters see the value this project has for our state.