digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at gas2.org

California Building 220 MPH High-Speed Train SFO-LAX

gas2.org — 800-mile bullet-train system that will connect Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. Trains traveling at 220 mph on the systems are forecast to carry up to 100 million passengers per year by 2030.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • curtis87xc03, on 05/15/2008, -3/+93Hasn't been approved yet
    • SgtAl, on 05/15/2008, -24/+7Also it probably wont and shouldnt considering the fact that California is rapidly going broke.
      • LonesomeFighter, on 05/15/2008, -1/+15the train would actually help their economy.
        • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2Based on what? Or is that your unilateral opinion.
          Needless to say MTV liberals apparently approve so you must be doing something right.
        • boot20, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7It's simple economics. Oh, you didn't RFTA and you probably don't live in CA so you know nothing about the project...

          Hooray stupid diggers!
          • thatsmyaibo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6I live in Los Angeles and I'm a pilot that often travels to SF. I cannot wait for this train (assuming it gets approved). I think it will do wonders for the CA economy and for gas consumption as millions of people every year travel from SF to LA and vise versa.

            As for CA's debt, our previous governor ***** us over with a failed energy plan and the budgets are being reworked. I am not concerned with CA's debt but I think we do need to start working on illegal immigration with takes over $9 billion a year out of our budget with a $32 billion deficit.
          • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -5/+1^^ why do you want to come up here. The harder it is to get from LA to SF the better. What kind of moron would commute in between the two?! Just stay there or move up here. we dont want a pipeline directly connected to LA's vile stench.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -6/+6rapidly going broke? Been broke for a while. Passing the budget has been ridiculous the past 5-10 years. We were 30 billion in the whole in 2003! We're 10-20 billion in the hole this year depending on the source!

        It's border line comical this would be looked into at all. This project is a game, a toy if you will, for some elite powers in CA who got their footing by donating a ton of cash and throwing parties for grey davis.

        I have faith in CA voters that they want more debt, more government, and more public services managed poorly as proven by the last 10 years of voting, so it will probably pass.
        • Surferess, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7We are broke. We just lost 1/2 the English teachers at our HS.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2I guess I wasn't clear, I agree we are broke, but we've been broke for approaching a decade.

            2007-8 vs 2008-9 CA spending, from montery herald 5/14

            Business, Transportation & Housing $12.61 billion $12.84 billion
            Resources $7.24 billion $6.19 billion
            Environmental Protection $2.07 billion $1.64 billion
            Health and Human Services $38.02 billion $38.06 billion
            Corrections and Rehabilitation $10.20 billion $10.16 billion
            K-12 Education $45.77 billion $45.73 billion
            Higher Education $13.75 billion $14.24 billion
            Labor and Workforce Development $428 million $431 million
            General Government $7.18 million $7.16 million
            Total $145.03 billion $144.35 billion
        • Gregbertt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Washington State here (aka the other "Inland Empire"). This should be fully supported by all states it would serve - hopefully the financial burden will be shouldered by more than just California. If this is placed in front of voters here it will surely float.
      • expatcatalyst, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10Maybe this will get approved about the time we get BART in the Central Valley!
        • Mankind121, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7Central Valley? Jumping the gun much? Livermore has been paying for BART for 30+ years while it still doesn't have a station.
        • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Thats a much better idea. And finish up the san jo connection one of these days also.
        • boot20, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2How about some tracks going down 680....Wouldn't that be nice?
    • sanman, on 05/15/2008, -1/+23I think it's cool though. Japan, Europe, and even China have their bullet trains. It's long overdue for the US to get them.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/15/2008, -14/+11California must build it underground - Hitting wild life at 220 MPH is going to make a big mess.

      The whole thing should be running while under 10 meters of earth, so as not to disturb people, plants and animals.

      With as strict as CA environmental laws are, they will have to relocate all the Earthworms to new,
      happy homes - but if the train is mag/lev electrical and does not emit CO2 but runs on solar or nuclear electric power - it's a good deal.
      • neozero497, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Hmmmm Couldn't they just build a fence around the trains?
        • EarlOfLade, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1That is what is done in other places along with crossing areas or under/over-passes where the animals safely can cross the lines.

          Of course, there are no road crossings for such rail systems.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -1/+17They'll also have to bring in a shaman to make sure that the mag/lev is in conjunction with the trains aura.
        • Ebulating, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7They will need to consult a feng shui master to orient the tracks.
      • AngelBunny, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4have you ever driven in the areas they plan to put the train? wild life? don't make me laugh. most of it is desert and the other parts are fields of nothing. the average flow of traffic on i-5 in central cali, at times, exceeds 140mph for cars. there is no wild life, just lots of bugs.
        • DeathMote, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Average traffic exceeds 140mph? Do you even have your license yet?

          This isn't NFS
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1tell that to the farmers shut down for that endagered field mouse a bunch of years back.
        • LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Desert wild life have rights too!
          Don't be such a Species Bigot... Specist!

          I will light a scented candle for you
          and meditate upon your well being,
          so your soul will expand to embrace
          love and joy for all life forms in the Cosmos.
      • Jess2mix, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Really? Underground? dude it's Cali..they have EARTHQUAKES!
        • breadfred, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I have a better idea. Suspend the rails from the Moon.
      • crocheoni, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5come on ppl, read some history on BART, and all the previous work the CHSRA has done. some of the passes will have to enter underground, but fencing, and other related protection plans are well into final approvals. read your ballots if you live in CA!
        • 22magnum, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2and BART was supposed to go way faster, so this train will probably end up going 150mph if its built
      • Magicmasta, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure all high speed trains are electric. In most places I've been in europe the trains are electric, only if you go to the middle of nowhere can you find diesel trains.
        • init100, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2There are a few "high-speed" trains with diesel power, but they are few and far between. They are also comparably slow, with the fastest one reaching 158 mph. This is probably because diesel-powered high-speed trains are mostly considered for existing non-electrified lines, not for new construction projects.
    • jserio, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12Grew up in CA and lived in Oakland from 99-01. Back then, high speed trains were proposed from LA to SF but inland (running through Fresno). We're definitely long overdue for high speed trains in the US.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3I'm all for them, just not from SF to LA. LA to Minnesota would be better.
        • CiXeL, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1just like the talk of the proposed high speed train from LA to vegas.
      • klparrot, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2If you look at the site, this is also an inland route through Fresno.
      • LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1This train will be the first step in the development of the Mega City:
        Los Francisco, with 2 Billion residents!
    • synthoid, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3Pics or its fake.
    • palmer, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Thus buried as inaccurate.
    • surrealpath, on 05/15/2008, -0/+42030?! That is the year I turn 50. In the meantime, I took the maglev train in Shanghai just last week.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
  • claybodie, on 05/15/2008, -3/+95Can you imagine a high-speed rail line from Vancouver BC to San Diego? Build it!
    • rdaly92, on 05/15/2008, -23/+0I would hate anymore tourists in my city. We have enough kooky people from Arizona already.
      inb4 SD generates alot of revenue from tourists
    • rdaly92, on 05/15/2008, -21/+0i think i would go crazy with anymore tourists in my city. We already have enough kooky people from Arizona.
      inb4 SD generates a lot of revenue from tourists
    • rdaly92, on 05/15/2008, -17/+1wtf?? ***** you refresh button
    • toucci, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9DEA would be all over that
    • fuhlavaflave, on 05/15/2008, -13/+5Who the hell wants to go TOWARDS Canada?
      • CrazyDave303, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6No no you got it all wrong we want to go down to LA.

        Hey plus we got good weed :) and 19year of age law at the bars. So it's not all bad.
        • cjflashman, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3See Diggnation episode a few weeks ago, Where Kevin and Alex made a minor comment about how "Getting arrested outside of the US you're gonna loose your ****ing arm." and how if you "Get arrested in Canada... Wait a aminute."
          • CrazyDave303, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Cops only take your weed when their own stash runs out on their shift. (or at lest in burbs of Vancouver)
    • Lazydriver, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8If this is built, I see in a short period after that there'll be a line from LA to Las Vegas/Salt Lake City and Phoenix to San Antonio.

      Hell yeah!
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2i think i would go crazy with anymore tourists in my city. We already have enough kooky people from Arizona.
      inb4 SD generates a lot of revenue from tourists
    • quaxon, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6its a great idea until the idiots start clamoring about it being the NAFTA railway, NWO and such....
    • papastout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2HELL YEAH!!! Great Idea Clay! Shout out to the HSRail from Humboldt County! (cough cough) I mean, why stop at SF? You know we have the coast starlight going from there BC to LA, yes? Way great ride!
    • ElliotShoe, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8omg, Whistler every weekend!
      • Handcannons, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1You can do that now by plane, what makes you think a bullet train ticket would be that much cheaper?
      • Commodore84, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Read my mind.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I will move to Vancouver if that happens...
      • sublimemind, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4already moving in september, wish me luck :)
        • bosssmiley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Luck? Where you're going you don't need...luck.
          Welcome back to Loyalist America. ;-)
    • gavinhudson, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1So excited for this!!
  • Ridgeliner7, on 05/15/2008, -4/+106Great (and overdue) idea.....let's hope it becomes a reality!
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4yes, because all CA needs right now is another $10 billion in debt.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Haha you got buried for actually considering a real world problem instead of just dreaming away about how totally awesome the night life would be.
    • AROZ, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11The east coast needs a real high speed line too. Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, NYC, Philly, Washington (etc) should all be connected with this kind of travel option.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3you're absolutely right! I love the fact that I can get to Philly in 15 minutes from my house, NYC in 45minutes and Washington in 2 but a train to Montreal, Toronto and Chicago that doesn't cost out the ass would own
      • init100, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3There is already a hig-speed service (Acela Express) between Boston and Washington DC, through Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York, although it is AFAIK running on existing lines, which means that the trains can only use their top speeds (150 mph) on short segments.
        • AROZ, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I am aware of that, but that falls very short what I had in mind. At least it won't be that expensive in the future since some of the infrastructure is there.
    • djrbx, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4I hope it comes true, that's all I have to say
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1***** that, worst idea ever. LA to anywhere else instead.
    • joshuabowers, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It's got my vote, especially if they do, indeed, plan to tie the Inland Empire into it.
    • anogenic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Why wasn't this made 20 years ago? Like the high speed trains in the rest of the western countries...
    • tandy400, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Adam Carolla will be pleased.
    • pulsar4, on 08/06/2008, -0/+0We need more funding for high density metro lines like the LA Red-line and BART trains before we spread people out to Turlock, Lodi and Fresno. We need to get the 10 million in SF and 17 million in LA moving efficiently first. The red-line encourages high density growth, the trains encourage people to commute huge distances and waste more energy and gas (from Lodi to the bay area). The INTRA STATE trains are something we can do later after we finish building out the metro area commuting. We don't want to encourage Joe from the Central valley to commute to LA every day, because inevitably Joe is also going drive his car occasionally to LA. We should make it more difficult to commute from central valley to LA. I doubt I would ever take this bullet train, I will definitely take the red-line however.
  • ubernoggin, on 05/15/2008, -2/+43About dang time.
    • lfroker, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12*by 2030
      • schmons, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10"forecast to carry up to 100 million passengers per year by 2030"

        so by 2030 there should be 100 million passengers.... not "it will be completed by 2030."
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3More like about dang time to separate northern california from the bottom part.
      • neo1513, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Dude you're an *****. All of your above comments are dumb, quit playing on this Norcal Socal stuff, it's tired
  • sleepyjjk, on 05/15/2008, -4/+174One thing to note is that they haven't actually started building it yet. California's residents need to vote on this issue in November in order to get this thing started.

    So, if you are a Californian citizen like me, please vote yes this coming November. And inform other people about it too.
    • rachelmsearchin, on 05/15/2008, -2/+9Hear hear! Even getting the bond measure on the ballot was a big step for the high speed rail, but it still needs to pass. Vote yes on this in November.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -17/+9I'm tired of the mind blowing figures of CA debt and incompetence running what bloated public services we already have. I can go 115mph if I want on 5 between LA and Sac a majority of the year. Any money for infrastructure needs to go towards helping traffic IN LA, SAC, and the Bay Area.

      The Bay bridge should be proof enough that serious changes in government need to take place before they are allowed to supervise anymore large projects.
      • ehalasey, on 05/15/2008, -3/+21God forbid that we build a transit system that cuts down on the number of cars we have on the road while pouring more money back into the state economy. Your selfish needs do nothing for everyone else while we continue to pollute like crazy and ignore the consequences. You want to talk about things we've been incompetent about? It's public transportation. The state wouldn't be spending NEARLY as much on highway construction and repair if there had been a plan for the long-term. I'm glad to see that someone's finally got a long view here because the way out of debt is to take on projects like this, and over time, that sinkhole will start to fill itself in.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -13/+4Alright braniac, explain why Amtrak is hardly used at all, because it doesn't go 220? I don't thinks so. Explain to me how this train is going to keep cars off the road, because I-5 is a two lane road in each direction and not clogged at all except holidays. And when it is it's usually because of RV's, semi-trailers, and local transportation of seasonal semis for agrictulture. All very likely candidates of the bullet train.

          You've been brainwashed. There's nobody to ride this train, and you have no data to prove this train will actually save energy or emissions. How is spending 20 billion (so 40 billion in reality) augmenting a road that allows free movement of thosands of vehicles, where they are most efficient and clean, better than not doing anything about stop and go traffic for hundreds of thousands in the metropolitan areas, where vehicles run their worst?

          I think you're the selfish one, you clearly have no idea what the fiscal health of the state is, but you can be counted on to vote for any new spending proposed as long as it has "Union approved" or "Clean Water" or "Environmentally Friendly" printed on the non-recycled 8x11 glossy poster board political advertisement delivered to your door.

          On top of that you can start to explain to me where the electricity will come from. As any savings in petroleum doesn't do a lick for our electricity shortage until we have new plants.
        • rpad, on 05/15/2008, -2/+14Amtrak does not directly connect major cities in California. There is no direct train route from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
        • tschau, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7Regarding the Amtrak comparison... in addition to what rpad said, the trains are unreliable (due to issues with shared rails, I think), and yes, they are SLOW. I can drive 300 miles from Chicago to Detroit faster than I can get to the train station and take the train over.

          A 220 MPH alternative with few stops would be very welcome where I am.
        • pilot3033, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7not to mention the rails are shared by freight, thus making trains un-reliable and slow, therefore inefficient. And btw, people DO ride these trains anyway! Regional and commuter rail has always been lacking in CA, and it's about time we got some. The thing about mass transit is that it needs to be supported by other mass transit. The NYC system of Subways, Busses, Commuter and Regional Rail all come together to let people get where they need to go without much hassle; it allows people to commute or carpool in and out, saving people money on gas, saving the roads from more cars, and directly funding the city to continue to improve both infrastructure and other projects, all while providing JOBS.
          The trollys and BART in SFO already make it an ideal destination for SoCalers to have a weekend, a train makes that an easier possibility, stimulating the economy via tourism as well. This line in conjunction with expansion of LA and SD rapid transit could do all sorts of wonders with little downside.


        • pinkcherry, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5rpad is correct. You would have to take Amtrak's connecting bus line for example from Los Angeles to Bakersfield. The whole process to get around via Amtrak is not very efficient and and can be slow.
        • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1"Amtrak does not directly connect major cities in California. There is no direct train route from San Francisco to Los Angeles."
          And thank god for that. Now if we can just set up roadblocks.
      • rda52, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3about the Amtrak situation:
        on a recent trip to Disneyland from San Diego, i reached Disneyland before my friends did on Amtrak and spent less on gas compared to what they spent on tickets on the Amtrak

        IMO the Amtrak is *****
      • boot20, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5You are a moron. Amtrak SUCKS. It takes around 1 hour to go from Martinez to Sacramento and it costs ~$50 roundtrip!! The worst part is there is very little parking around the station and the train ALWAYS takes far longer than 1 hour...
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2and this new train is going to be much differen!.... because it goes 220.
          • boot20, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4*sigh* Look, believe what you want, but yes, it's going to be different because it will be an EXPRESS train, unlike Amtrak and the issues you encounter with it.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1How is this guy a moron? Why is he being Dugg down?

        A bullet train is a great idea, but unfortunately everything he just said is right. The state is going broke.

        If you want to support this, make sure you support a tax increase to cover it.
    • rdaly92, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2as long as this thing stays out of Trestles, (heres looking to you TCA) I'm down.

      http://www.surfrider.org/savetrestles/blog/
      support our national parks
    • shadowmoose, on 05/15/2008, -2/+9It has my vote.
    • DykeStew, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1Dykestew FTW!!!
    • N1tro, on 05/15/2008, -1/+17I hope gas prices at $8 a gallon when the vote hits so people will vote for it, and notice how much we are in need for a system like this in california. Railroad 2.0
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -12/+3I'm a lifelong Norcal resident and I'm voting AGAINST it twice. We dont want your kind up here.
    • CrazyDave303, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6I hope they build high speed lines a cross the country. At lest it would be nice up to Seattle.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5It's got my vote.
    • Syric, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4I fully support it.
  • SgtAl, on 05/15/2008, -24/+13Too late. With projected growth of the California this would have no impact on reducing traffic or pollution. Plus if they did build it I would be almost 70 by the time I could ride it.
    • absurdist, on 05/15/2008, -5/+26Oh, well, hell, that makes all the difference. Cancel the project, people, because Sgt. Al will be 70 by the time he gets to ride it. For that matter, cancel all long-term planning on infrastructure because Sgt. Al won't be around to reap the benefits of it.

      Seriously - how ***** superficial, selfish, and short-sighted can you get before you actually implode?
    • LonesomeFighter, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4ya we shouldn't build a base on Mars because it won't personally benefit me and I don't work for NASA so I won't get to have the fun of visiting it...
      there's a thing called building a better future for the human race and our community.
    • rdaly92, on 05/15/2008, -7/+4i think you guys are taking his comment a bit too seriously. I don't think he meant it like that....
    • ricodued, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4I think he meant to use his then-age as a way of saying "Jesus Christ this is going to take forever."
      • Chaos12, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I think we are using our now-talk to say "Jesus Christ, that doesn't matter"
    • Jus7in, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Douchebag alert.
    • Modizzle, on 05/15/2008, -0/+170 is the new 40. However in the olden days, people didn't make it much past 40. I jest.
  • benagarr, on 05/15/2008, -2/+17Please build it!
  • maddvibe, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15Sounds awesome, hope it happens.
  • atbnet, on 05/15/2008, -4/+82While it's a good idea, 2030 is too far away. It may sound impatient, but the US is going away from being a country that got big things done fast and becoming a country who does mediocre things whenever it is convenient. I would love to see a high speed rail system connecting the major cities across the country with smaller railways branching out from them to the smaller cities in between.
    • BOFH2, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3Lets build it fast and hope that it does not fall completely apart with an earthquake. They have to secure funding, right of way and bids. More then likely they are managing expectations by saying 2030 and hope to have it done sooner.
      • DCGaymer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12Japan can build in earthquake country....so we know the technology is out there
      • AmericansRevolt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6*****. go ask the people working in dubai- anything can be done within 5 years. all that "funding" and 'securing' crap is POLITICS and THATS the real reason why it wont get built. it should be a good source of jobs and also to lighten the burden on the roads.. but bureaucrats will make it all not worth while.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Lets not, and you can just live in LA.
        • KMartSheriff, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Wow you're really having a bad day aren't you?
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/15/2008, -5/+5it won't be completed by 2030 because CA will be bankrupt by then.
    • fumar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Infrastructure has been ignored the last 10 years by the government, just look at how many cities have massive traffic problems now compared to 10 years ago. We need regional dedicated high speed lines where freight traffic isn't the priority like it is on every other line in the country. That is why Amtrak sucks so much, they get jerked around by the freight lines and are perpetually slow and late.
      • InferiorWang, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure that's the reason Amtrak sucks, but it's a good example.
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Wrong, terrible idea.
    • cnot3, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10With the price of gas going up and up, we need to build a rail infrastructure similar to Europe's before people have no means of getting around. 2030 is far too late, we need that ***** yesterday.
    • stretch611, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Building out the rail system could lead to job growth and an improved economic situation. I'm sure it would help more than a $600 check.
      • korvan504521, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Not as much as you think. A lot of labor for construction is imported these days, because in many areas there just isn't the labor necessary. I've worked sites with imported Polish and Portuguese workers where we're paying the guys MORE than we'd pay an American just because we can't get enough Americans in the area, and no one will move to the job.
    • palmer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8"the US is going away from being a country that got big things done fast and becoming a country who does mediocre things whenever it is convenient."

      Or not at all. It has been what, seven years since 9/11 and we still haven't rebuilt TWO BUILDINGS. I don't think it took seven years to rebuild Chicago after the fire, or San Francisco after the quake. Pathetic.
      • korvan504521, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Building in a city these days has so much red tape attached it would boggle your mind. Then there's all the disagreement about what to put at ground zero.
        Personally I think we should have rebuilt the buildings exactly as they were. Except with flak cannons and 50 cal turrets.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -25/+17We're talking a 20 billion deficit for this budget cycle alone as is. And the bills for a lot of our recent proposition bond measures are going to start coming due in the same time frame, and they're going to be huge. Last I heard this was dead since we are so piled in debt. I hope it never happens. The amount of money Grey Davis took from the people looking into this was criminal.

    Traffic between Sacramento and LA on the 5 is fine on non holidays, the traffic IN LA and Sac is what sucks. Since CA is involved with this, the estimated cost should be doubled if not tripled.... as proven by every other large infrastructure project we've tried lately. We'd put union mechanics and operators on it too, just to make things work exceptionally well.

    If you are a California citizen like me, tired of perpetual debt, omnipresent taxes, and being held hostage by Union X year to year, please vote No this coming November.
    • Shiftgood, on 05/15/2008, -3/+18Dont we have a republican govenor right now? Isnt he in the same situation as when we kicked davis out? seriously... dont like california? dont think we'll miss you.
      • ehalasey, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3I think calling him a Republican is doing the Republicans a favor these days. He's incredibly fiscally conservative with a strong sense of the long-term, which has been a very welcome surprise. You're definitely right about the lack of change in the deficit since Davis was ousted, but it's nice to see that it hasn't changed the fact that the policy should always be that what is spent is gathered from what was taxed. Want more debt, why not cut taxes? The road to perpetual debt is paved with spend and spend; the road to sustainability is using public money for public provisions.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Our legislature is the primary source of our constant fiscal disasters. And you not at least mentioning them shows how little you know and have followed about how your/our state runs. Play party semantics all you want, I'm just going to go by the overall numbers and performance.
        1998: Budget = 72 billion, population = 33mil
        2008: Proposed budget = 115 billion so far + 10 to 20 billion of debt, population = 36mil
        Now on top of that I challenge you to name one CA public service that is meeting or exceeding performance expectations.

        I love California to death, it's the most beautiful collection of land in the world, other wise I would have fleed those ruining it long ago.

        • diggrnumber1, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2we have the worst state legislature and possibly the worst governor in the country. we just need to reelect them all.
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2it doesn't matter because we're going to go bankrupt before 2030 anyway at this rate. We're in such a dire situation right now that i think we need a combination of BOTH increased taxes and fewer government services. Arnold has only provided one half. as a result, he has failed miserably.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -5/+7Arnold has been a divine gift compared to gray davis. But liberals will never admit that because they're a ***** cult.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2A bit harsh but I agree to an extent. Arnold is a step away from being a Democrat but as long as he has an elephant next to his name people will hate for no other reason than is party preference.
        • Syric, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Are you kidding? As far as I can tell anyway, Arnold's plenty popular where I come from. And I come from the San Francisco Area. He's doing, at the very least, a solid job.
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3I like Arnold. He doesn't seem to give a ***** about party politics.
    • BlakeEM, on 05/15/2008, -2/+11Well I live in San Diego and I think this train would be awesome, and I'm sure I'd even travel up the coast more often. We are in desperate need of better transportation. The benefits for this out weight the cost. One big problem is 2030 seems ridiculously long. I don't see why they couldn't get this done in 5-10 years.
    • suttercain, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6Why when anyone is honest on here does it get a negative vote? It's a fact... Public transportation in CA does not work!

      They always have to get subsidized because they can't sustain any type of profit. I am a life long Californian who is NOT republican. But NonLeftistDiggr is correct. All the other comments like "Let's make this happen" is a not logical.
      • rdoger6424, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3public transportation is almost never profitable.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2That's because public transportation in CA is not efficient. Charge people a reasonable price to get to real destinations and it will work. Here in LA the public transport is horrible and is inaccessible from where I live unless I drive to a station and only goes to the ghetto. CA is probably the most liberal state in the US and people are buying hybrids in flocks. This could absolutely work in order to get the semi hippies from LA to the hardcore hippies in SF.
    • drogbadives, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Your view is very short-sighted. Yes, we spend way too much money. But, if money is not invested in our infrastructure (planes, roads, trains) our mobility and economic growth will be severely hampered. Plus, the bill has been modified to be a public-private partnership so there will not be as much risk on the state's coffers.

      If we don't due this now, what are going to do when fuel is too expensive and it is uneconomical to fly or drive between LA and SF. We can power this sucker by nuclear power and not worry about fuel prices.
    • Syric, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3If CA's public transportation doesn't work, the solution is better public transportation, not no public transportation.
      • suttercain, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2How do you create better transportation? How do you force people, who want to drive, not to drive? How much are you willing to spend to take a risk... with taxpayer dollars mind you?
  • bstory, on 05/15/2008, -2/+20Can't they make them faster now?
    • Emachine, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5We want to see actual bullet speeds...
    • crocheoni, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3the new ICE's in germany are breaking records
    • praha, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2crocheoni above mentioned the ICE train. I just took it last week between Siegburg and Frankfurt Airport - I noticed the display boasting 302. Not bad.
    • Rethcir, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1You need really straight rails to go that fast, and htey have to be fenced off so animals and dumb people don't get in the way, since it would be pretty catastrophic. So probably a lot of property taking involved.
  • limewood, on 05/15/2008, -1/+23in case anyone else is wondering, here's the official gov't site on this project: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3Cool website. It says that it will take 2 hours and 38 min to get from Market street downtown SF to downtown Los Angeles and cost 55$

      Well it takes 5 hours by car plus you gotta deal with the Grapevine.

      By the time they get this thing built though I will be to old to give a *****.
  • neonsurfer, on 05/15/2008, -4/+24I WANT MY DISNEY STYLE MONORAIL!
    • DCGaymer, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_Monorai ...
      • InferiorWang, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1My favorite Conan O'Brian episode.
    • mdiluzio, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Visit Orange County and it can be in your future. A "transportation hub" is proposed for an area just down the street from Disneyland and in the Angel Stadium parking lot that would include a stop for this high-speed railway and a possible monorail system to travel throughout the Anaheim area. Google "ARTIC platinum triangle" or snoop around this website: http://www.octa.net/artic.aspx for more info!!
    • cha5e, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Or move to Indianapolis. Of course, it only goes from hospital A to hospital B to hospital C (the hospitals paid for it, and it's mostly targeted at doctors). But they keep dangling that "maybe we'll expand it to other areas of the city" carrot from time to time.
    • johnomaz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I heard about these plans years ago. It was actually supposed to go through the town where I used to live. I still hope it does. I only live 30 mins from there and have friends in LA that I would love to be able to visit more frequently. I just hope the cost isn't outrageous and only accessable to rich people.
  • scy1192, on 05/15/2008, -2/+63Asia has these types of system now. We are getting one in 2030. What will Asia have by then?
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3we won't get one in 2030 - we'll be financially insolvent by then. people still haven't learned that if we don't have a balanced budget in the first place nothing will ever get done because all our money will go to creditors who will demand higher and higher interest rates as we are steadily downgraded by the credit rating firms, which will result in more and more debt. if the state doesn't change its spending habits, the only solution is bankruptcy. and i don't think any state has ever gone bankrupt, so who knows what could happen.
    • subterfuge, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2grav-lev
    • fuhlavaflave, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Too many people.
    • Valkarie70, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Flying cars!
    • OmniShinzui, on 05/15/2008, -0/+13portals
    • thatsmyaibo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Worm holes.
    • Tyrghast, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Suicide booths.
    • EarlOfLade, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7Ownership of USA?
    • freakguy54321, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5your face.
    • phyx726, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3me
    • flxfxp, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6***** Gundams
    • Oppslagsverk, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2Flying trains. Well actually they are researching a type of train and track that allows the trains to levitate above the tracks, minimizing friction and fuel cost.
      • palmer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5You're kidding, right? You do know that mag-lev trains have been in use for years, right?
        • Oppslagsverk, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Well i read it some years ago though... Could be an explanation.
    • Psi57, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1No Jews.
    • ukblacknight, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Knives and forks
  • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -25/+5Perfect for those closet Republican gay politicians to get to fag-town and back quick enough to vote during role call.
    • EntropyNine, on 05/15/2008, -1/+19don't call it fag-town, it makes you look like a huge douche.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2Dont say huge douche, it makes you look like an internet forum fag.
        • sherbertbones, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2You're really being a faggy douche
  • snafflepaffle, on 05/15/2008, -10/+24As cool as it sounds, it ain't gonna happen.
    (CA resident)
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7I agree, how long have they been working on replacing HALF of the Bay Bridge?

      Jeez
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -8/+3It sounds very uncool, I sure hope it dont.
      (Norcal resident)
      • KMartSheriff, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3You're an idiot and a terrible troll. Here's to hoping this thing actually gets built.

        (also NorCal resident)
    • pilot3033, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6not with that attitude

    • crocheoni, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1it will take a while, but its already in action. surveying has been done. (CA resident)
    • geneticlone, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2How much does it cost and where will the investments come from?

      The cost to build the 800-mile system is estimated to be about $40 billion. Once built, the system will not require operating subsidies and will generate $1 billion in annual profits.

      How the hell do we get that much money?
      • meik, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2On the official site, it says it'll be funded by a combination of state, federal, and private investments. Look, if we can afford to throw away trillions of dollars in this war, I think we can come up with a mere $40 billion.
  • nodoubts, on 05/15/2008, -9/+7This kind of public works construction may be what we need to create jobs while investing in the future.

    *firstpost
    • BOFH2, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Of that comment? Tell me oh wise one, how does using public money to pay workers help the over all economy of CA?
      • Syric, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3When G goes up, Y goes up. Basic economics for ya. It's when T doesn't go up along with it that problems happen.

        Yeah, I know it's not that simple. So sue me.
    • Handcannons, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0Jobs paid for with tax dollars don't help the economy because they don't actually benefit the economy. You're taking money from Peter to pay Paul, you're not bringing more money into the system like real economic growth that increases the amount of money in the state.
      • wavenger, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2The job itself, if it is only paid for by taxation, doesn't benefit the economy, but things those workers do often have a great net benefit on the economy. Transportation infrastructure is one of the best investments you can make into your economy. Workers, resources and tourists can get where they need to go faster and for less fuel => efficiency => wealth.
  • rrouse, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4330 years too late.
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1***** you. If it ever happened it would still be to soon.
    • crocheoni, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2its long overdue for sure, but the infrastructure will benefit many to come.
  • thespudmall, on 05/15/2008, -0/+14I request connection to Phoenix!
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1Connect what to pheonix? LA?
      Lol, if that ever happens your gonna get your cake and eat it to.
    • debpallet, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1You might bring that unbearable heat with you.
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2***** pheonix must be a mile from the sun.
    • N1tro, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3add Vegas to it... but if something like this is successful i can see many states working together.
    • reaver, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2that would be ***** sick. a connection between the 3 big cities.: Phoenix, LA, and Vegas.
      • cha5e, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1There is currently a proposal for HSR to go from Vegas almost to LA. They are proposing stopping "for now" at the point where I-15 goes from 2 lanes each direction to 3, because after that right-of-way would be too expensive to acquire. I think the idea is that then people from LA would drive to that point, park, and take the train the rest of the way, until ticket sales can pay to extend it further into LA.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7Moterey Herald 5/14 First column is 2007-8 spending second is proposed 2008-9 spending..... plus they haven't solved the most recent estimate of a 14 billion deficit on top of this.

    Business, Transportation & Housing $12.61 billion $12.84 billion
    Resources $7.24 billion $6.19 billion
    Environmental Protection $2.07 billion $1.64 billion
    Health and Human Services $38.02 billion $38.06 billion
    Corrections and Rehabilitation $10.20 billion $10.16 billion
    K-12 Education $45.77 billion $45.73 billion
    Higher Education $13.75 billion $14.24 billion
    Labor and Workforce Development $428 million $431 million
    General Government $7.18 million $7.16 million
    Total $145.03 billion $144.35 billion
    • debpallet, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2We can grow are way out of this deficit.
    • prleet, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1its only going to get worst as the stupid people having away too many kids...i feel like kids grow on trees these days.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -3/+352030?

    Jeez how come they can build something twice the size in China in 1/12th the time?
    • cadmiumpaint, on 05/15/2008, -2/+16bureaucracy
    • schrutefan, on 05/15/2008, -1/+15Prisoner workforce?
    • kcfreels, on 05/15/2008, -3/+222 words:

      Slave Labor.
      • adonline22, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Debpallet gave same comment 1 hour prior.
    • N1tro, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3They need little kids in the tunnels to place the TNT duh!
    • xmod3, on 05/15/2008, -2/+82 words: White people are lazy.
    • samyoungguitar, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Communist slavery.
    • jozb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Red tape
    • PunkRampant, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Because our morals hold us back from true potential.

      (Did I just sound like Voldemort?)
    • Handcannons, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2China doesn't use union workers and doesn't have nearly the safety regulations the US has. That doesn't necessarily mean the trains in China are unsafe, more that there is more red tape than there needs to be here.

      How many environmental impact studies do you think they do in China before building something like this vs the left coast where every square foot will have to be examined for endangered dirt before they can build.
    • onetimeuse, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2We could do it too if we paid you only a buck an hour, and thats being generous.
      • jpop, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1And shot the people that didn't take it...
    • Oppslagsverk, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Immense amounts of duct tape.
    • Psi57, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Because as much as we may dislike their oppressive "socialist" system, when it comes to getting things done at least their politicians don't spend a week on every bill trying to inject pork spending into it....
    • cha5e, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Also because if the US wants to build a freeway/rail/dam/etc where your house currently stands, they will go through a long drawn out process to buy you out. China just says "move, freeway's coming - here's a pittance".
  • gothicform, on 05/15/2008, -1/+23Well the headline is wrong but these trains *are* the future. If you've been to mainland Europe or parts of Asia you'll see them in action. As oil prices increase this is how we are going to get around.

    If even the Americans are now starting to build this stuff though, this puts the British government to shame. Their specifications for a new "high speed" train include diesel engines and a running speed of only 125mph. No train company is bidding to design and build them because the specs are so obsolete before they are even built they wouldn't be able to sell them anywhere else in the world so there are few economies of scale in the manufacturing and they'd make a loss.

    People say the traffic isn't so bad between those places and they can drive but they are missing the point. The point is that it will save millions of man hours a year because it is going 220 and your car does 55 tops if you're being legal. Still, I hope the Americans can do this project. That way they can perhaps fall in love with the train again and realise its much more comfortable, quicker, and safer than flying.
    • starf, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Actually, it's 70mph on the 5.
      I think what most people are missing is that while it may not be so bad now, it's only going to get worse.
    • OYAHHH, on 05/15/2008, -3/+8Okay,

      So the high-speed train goes 220 MPH. Big deal.

      Here is how a trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles would actually work for this train.

      First of all it's going to be a high-profile target for terrorists. So, expect check-in situations exactly like the airport.

      - Drive 30 minutes minimum to get to train station.

      - Ride bus from train station parking lot to terminal. 15 minutes

      - Check-in/security check/board time (just like an airport terminal). 60 minutes minimum.

      - Travel high speed to Los Angeles (approximately 440 miles). 120 minutes or two hours.

      - Gather bags checked, you don't think they are going to let your average family going to disneyland carry big bags onto a passenger car now do you? 30 minutes.

      - Ride rental car shuttle bus to rental car location (includes wait time for shuttle bus). 30 minutes.

      - Drive to Disneyland (or where-ever else in the Los Angeles area). Assume 30 minutes.

      Total elapsed time is 315 minutes if my math is right. Or 5 and 1/4 hours. And this assumes there are no intermediate train stops along the way. Do you really think the train will pass by the largest city in the North Bay area of CA (San Jose) without stopping? I don't think so, therefore add some station time.

      Time to drive a car from San Francisco to Disneyland (which I have done many times) is about 6.5 hours.

      So, what have you saved? About an hour of time.

      What have you lost? You don't have your own car with you when you get there. You've been herded like cattle, poked and prodded by security. The train ticket is not going to be cheap, it will be, by necessity, "competitive" with an airline ticket. You will have a rental car expense (try doing ANYTHING in CA without a car, ha! ha!). The list can go on and on....

      A fast train is pie-in-the sky thinking. It's not going to solve anything.

      Just fly larger aircraft. An airbus A340 seats up to 800 and will do the same trip in 75 fewer minutes.

      Save the billions spent on the proposed rail line and add a runway or two to the necessary airports at a much lower price.

      There is plenty of airspace and capacity, use it properly.
      • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6You are probably right, too bad Ameriku can't be like Japan with high speed trains as far as I know they don't deal with this kind of crap, they just get on the train and go.
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You've failed to notice that the entire country of Japan is physically smaller than the state of California.
        • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1That is not what I'm getting at.

          What I'm getting at is that it is not a hassle in Japan to get on a train even a high speed one. Because of all the hassle that America would add to using this there would be almost no benefit to using it in the first place. Has nothing to do with how big America/California is.
      • Syric, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3"North Bay area of CA (San Jose)"

        South Bay, buddy.
      • Octaman, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5How it really works...

        - Trains run from stations in the middle of the city (think Grand Central, NYC).
        - No check-in / security... which is actually rather strange / scary.
        - Every passenger car has a special area where you can dump your big-ass bags.
        • klparrot, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You don't go through security every time you take a metro train, so why would you need it for the high speed train? If you think about which would make a better terrorist target, it would probably be the one whose system carries more passengers per day (ie the metro train), since more people would feel vulnerable after such an attack.
    • scapermoya, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3i agree with you that we need to do this, but not because it is more comfortable, quicker, or safer. in fact it is none of those three. airline travel is one of the safest methods (in terms of chances of a crash) of travel in the world. and there's no way a train will ever be able to compete with a plane in terms of speed. comfort depends totally on money, not the method of travel. if you have the cash, you can get treated like a king on a plane, train, or automobile. in my experience, first class on an airline is better than first class on a train.

      i think trains are the way to go because they will be cheaper, and loosen our dependence on oil (given that they are electric trains, and the juice comes from renewable sources). plus, america just looks backwards by not having them. yeah, we are a huge country, but we are rich as ***** too.
      • miket, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1trains are the most efficient way to move stuff large distances over land (second most efficient to boats counting all travel)
        • dhs100, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Good point, although it's only [always] true for freight. Unfortunately passenger transport using rail and sea is usually a different story.

          For passenger trains it depends on the weight of the carriages, the number of stops, the fuel used and what you compare it to. Many European cars outperform passenger trains even when traffic problems are taken into account. That's because they were built with a lot of weight to them and the fuel is necessarily inefficient (electric trains loose massive amounts across the lines and diesel trains are heavy and have large overheads during stops) .

          Similarly, cruise liners normally use more C02 than airlines, even when you take into account the average over time and what the passengers would consume in produce if they'd already landed. This of course is because they are luxury forms of transport.

          There are also more efficient forms of transport than boats that are possible. Again, this depends on the contents of the vehicle and the speed requirements but lighter than air crafts (think airships) can massively decrease drag over water vehicles. They can also be made safe compared with the days of old.

          Having said all of that crap, I still agree with you on principle.
    • sonycam, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I can't think of why Britain would need a super fast long distance train? I've never wanted to go from London to Manchester in 3 hours, and for the many billions it would cost, there wouldn't be enough demand for it.
    • dhs100, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, the British rail system has had trains going at 125 mph since the 1970s, over 30 years ago. And you're forgetting something important - the UK is a very small and densely populated country so people rarely need to travel huge distances as in they do in the US. Because the station stops are closer together there is a diminishing return for higher speeds (by the time you'd accelerated to over 200 mph you'd already be slowing down for the next stop). Of course there is the channel tunnel which goes up to 300 kph and connects England to France. That's pretty damn fast.
      • gothicform, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1*yawn* The cost benefits per traveller per minute assuming they are a rail traveller are 33 pence. That means if you have 1 million people travel a year and you can save 30 minutes each between London and Edinburgh you are getting cost benefits of £9.9 million. A high speed railway would save approximately 2 hours per journey between London and Edinburgh which is £118.8 million pounds taking the total number of passengers between those two points only (3 million). That ignores the rest of the line would also benefit with cost benefits of a similar sum per mile for every other destination inbetween which would affect 25 million journeys.
        Although the trains have a max speed of 125mph the average speed is much much less... for example between London and Sheffield it's only 61 mph. North of Newcastle the track between London and Edinbrugh is incredibly slow, and the line isnt properly electrified even. Do not confuse the 125mph with the actual average cruising speed which is often half that. If you don't believe me look up the timetables online and then divide the distances by the time taken. I find it hilarious people say there's no demand for these services - every other Western European country has plenty of demand for them.
  • skubiszm, on 05/15/2008, -3/+26Welcome to the west coast version of the Big Dig. This will never happen. The auto and airline lobby will see to that.
    • nullcodes, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Umm, if it's the west coast version of the Big Dig, then it will get built.

      Also, the auto and airline investors can just put their money in this sort of thing and make even more money. Furthermore increased traffic between the two cities will generate more commerce and overall increase the need for cars and air travel.
    • pilot3033, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5I was thinking you may see backlash from the airline industry, but unlike BOS-NYC, the shuttles to and from SFO/OAK and LAX would still be competitive. But note also, that as fuel prices rise, airlines are going to look to cut short distance flights such as these in favor of longer, higher yield flights, especially if there is a train on the same service.

      The auto-industry will throw a hissy-fit (unless of course, the trains are built by them)
    • crocheoni, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3man if SF can ban plastic bags, and CA can start the world's standards to environmental protection i think theres more than hope.
  • aimhelix, on 05/15/2008, -5/+13By 2030, we'll have teleporters by then.
  • unangst, on 05/15/2008, -3/+52030? Isn't that 5 years after flying cars?
    • debpallet, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Don,t you have your flying car yet?
    • suttercain, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4According to BTTF 2, it's 15 years behind flying cars.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/15/2008, -2/+10I think high speed trains are something that America needs to embrace. Jet Fuel is going up in price and air travel for short trips won't be cost effective in the near future. I'd like to see LA to Vegas, LA to SD....this could be a really cool move.
    • debpallet, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8L.A. to Vegas would be GREAT!!!!
    • zspeed78, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Not to mention this train would get to LA in less than 2 hours.. making it almost as quick as flying once you consider the time it takes to actually get ready on a plane, get off, and all that annoying stuff. Right now if I leave my front door at noon, i get to LA at around 4pm by plane. (1 hour to airport, 1 hour at airport, 1 hour flight, rental car + making it out of the airport area and close to where I want to be). Or I could hop in my car, drive for 6, and have a car when I get there. Oh, and I got to leave exactly when I wanted, not when my plane ticket was. And I didnt rent a car, pay for parking, and all that junk. Planes suck for short distances. This train would be cool.
    • thafooz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Uh, you can already get to LA from SD by train. It's not a bullet train, but Amtrak will take you from Long Beach or Union Station to the Gaslamp in 2 hours for $30 and stops in the OC & North County.

      SoCal to Vegas would be hot, but CA doesn't have a lot of interest in making it easy to get to Vegas as there's a lot of gambling in state that it gets to keep the revenue from :(
    • Psi57, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1How about New York / Boston / DC to LA / SD / LV... oh wait... airline and auto lobbies (you know, the same people who bought out rail lines and tore up the tracks back in the day...)
  • jjackson, on 05/15/2008, -1/+11California has been talking about this since I was a child. Don't hold your breath.
  • HubbertWins, on 05/15/2008, -0/+72030? Not exactly a big priority I guess.
    • drogbadives, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It will be built by 2020, not 2030. 2030 refers to traffic projections.

      See cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
      • neozero497, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah the looks of it say and initial working section by 2020.

        Sigh how I would love to have a railway from Riverside to L.A. in 30 mins.
  • nullcodes, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9Building infrastructure nearly always makes sense.
    • topace3000, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Spending money we don't have nearly always makes sense.
  • crapmatic, on 05/15/2008, -3/+44If California could get a cut of that Iraq War defense spending, they could get this thing paid for overnight.
    • familynight, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2the lists of things that we could do with a massive redistribution of our military spending are always staggering. i'm sure someone can provide a link. it's really sad and just horribly corrupt. there is not a single good argument to support our current levels of military spending. if the media had any independence, credibility or backbone, it would be talked about every single day until it changes. i would strongly prefer redistribution and socialist-style government spending and i'm not a ron paul fan, but i would vote for a libertarian if they would promise to drastically change this issue. at least then, we would be rid of this ***** and actually be able to change this country in a meaningful way. sorry, i know this is off-topic, but your comment could be applied to so many issues.
    • Psi57, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3If we spent the amount of money going to fund our War on Imaginary Foes on say... education, infrastructure, and social services we would quickly become the envy of the world again. The amount of money we are talking about here is staggering! If I remember we are spending something close to NASA's annual budget every hour...
  • SoIcanDigg, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8That's badass! They need to link every major city in the US with this. Too bad it won't happen in my life time but great for my kids.
  • alexdagrate, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2Too bad it's got Cal colors...
  • gdagreat, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2about...10 years later than everyone else?
  • debpallet, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2What a great thing for the people.
  • Thezeppelin62, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Why?
  • alvarezg, on 05/15/2008, -6/+7I have always been a fan of European-style transportation for the US. What is scary now is the security risk along the track- more vulnerable than airlines.
    • phoque, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Thats why there are so many terrorist attacks on railways in Europe, eh?
      • bosssmiley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1One was enough. Madrid train bombing anyone?
    • kevinpuj, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1European-style transportation is great, but not feasible for the US:

      I've traveled fairly often with the high-speed ICE train in Germany in my 10 months here and love it, but the distances and demographics don't allow for European train service in America. Germany itself is roughly 1/22nd of the size of the mainland United States, and the population density in Europe is more than twice of that in the United States.

      This is a step in the right direction, though. The next thing I would like to see would be a high-speed train connected the more densely-packed cities on the East Coast.
    • dhs100, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Dude, I can only think of 2 attacks and 1 of those wasn't even on the railway system...it was on the subway and many more people died on the air attacks than on the trains...even if you just look at the actual people on the planes.
  • sonicularulus, on 05/15/2008, -4/+7what happens if it derails?
    • sorcerer05, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0Buy the Transrapid (see my comment further down). The Transrapid cannot derail due to the electromagnetic levitation technology!
    • Baltoche, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents
      In more than two decades of high-speed operation, the TGV has not recorded a single fatality due to accident while running at high speed. There have been several accidents, including three derailments at or above 270 km/h (168 mph), but in none of these did any carriages overturn. This is credited in part to the stiffness that the articulated design lends to the train. There have been fatal accidents involving TGVs on lignes classiques, where the trains are exposed to the same dangers as normal trains, such as level crossings.
    • Psi57, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I'd rather ride a new train that comes from a well funded gov. project that an old ass plane that an airline on the verge of bankruptcy is running...
    • MessiR10, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1if it derails you live happily ever after
  • macslut, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1By 2030? I can imagine a Kennedy-like speech about getting a man from SF to LA in 3 decades. So it's not for us, it's for our grandkids. And it's paid for by bonds, paid for by our grandkids. Do we really think this is what they'll want? If so, let's go for it.

    This comment is sponsored by L' Chepeau Natural Organic Tamari Soy Sauce:
    http://chepeau.com/Gluten_Free_Tamari.html
    • drogbadives, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1It will be built by 2020, not 2030. 2030 refers to traffic projections.

      See cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
  • fumar, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2good start! Now how about some of this nice high speed rail in the midwest where you don't have to tunnel through mountains. Milwalkee-Chicago-St. Louis high speed sound good?
    • AmericansRevolt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3its absolutely appalling that we dont have that yet in the midwest. the whole country should have high speed rail between all cities.... its just embarrassingly stupid that we dont
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1*******************
      • SillyRabbits, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Why is that appalling? No need to run high speed lines when people don't even use the regular system. High speed doesn't shave as much travel time off the trip as you seem to think. There is still the travel time to and from the station and station stops along the way. There are currently commuter lines between many of the major midwest cities. If people aren't using them now, why to do you think a very expensive system that isn't that much faster? I think, in fact, it's a good thing politicians haven't been fooled into squandering tax payer money on such a system there.
        • Stevo23, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1\There is still the travel time to and from the station\
          Yeah, because it's not like you have to travel to an airport to fly...
    • cha5e, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Amtrak is currently upgrading Chicago-St. Louis lines to allow for higher speeds. How much faster? When will it be done? Your guess is as good as mine. But there is actual construction work being done.
  • mnemy, on 05/15/2008, -0/+13California, especially southern california (I hear up north has it better) really needs efficient public transportation. It's not so bad in San Diego where I live, but LA highways are horrible. After visiting Tokyo, I can certainly see the benefits of thorough public transportation systems.
    This is coming wayyy too late, but late is better than never. If only they had started it sooner.
    • FranksValli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I've always thought it would be awesome if L.A. had a subway system. I was really impressed when I visited New York - the way that I could get from the relative outskirts into the heart of downtown on a predictable efficient way. But a subway isn't really an option at this point for L.A. unfortunately. I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be a subway, since San Francisco's trolley/bus system seems to be pretty efficient. ANYTHING is better than what's going on right now with transportation in L.A.
  • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -10/+3Please lord dont do it. SF is bad enough without an idiot pipeline straight from LA. We've already got an immigrant and ***** problem without an express connection straight to the source. I'm still hoping we can split this state in half one day.
    • Mattwdj, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3lol i like the train idea, i just dont want any trains up in marin where i live. lol
      • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3I can go for some trains. Mag/levs are supposedly dang near silent and electric powered I believe. But we already have bart. we'd be better off expanding our bart tracks so that we can reach places that are actually useful to get to for this community like san jose.
        I'm nauseated by a proposal of an express between SF and LA. Two very different cultures and I dont know about LA but I dont want to ruin our culture with easy access to the steaming overflow of Los Angeles problems. They want us more than we need them. ***** that *****.
        • Mattwdj, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4yea the bay is like its own place. I dont want all those annoying LA people with the bleached hair, gay shorts, sandles coming up to the bay. But i we def need a way down to san jose. It takes sooo long to drive there with that oaktown traffic.
          • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Goodness gracious it takes forever to get across oakland. But they've encouraged the traffic congestion by making the bus system such a mess. And then you cant ride your bike either because there's broken glass everywhere. We've definitely got our own problems already and we sure a ***** dont need LA's on top of our own.
  • grimcracker, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3I was all for it until the part about it being paid for with bonds. How much longer are we going to keep buying things with money we don't have?
  • Awspire, on 05/15/2008, -9/+3Public transportation sucks! I'll ride a bus/train when I'm near homeless. Build more roads and push credits/tax breaks (corporate and end user sides) for purchasing/building fuel efficient cars.
    • omaryak, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Public transit doesn't have to suck if government invests in it properly with frequent service, modern equipment, and smart planning (neighborhoods clustered around train stations, e.g.).

      I'll tell you what sucks: traffic — and it doesn't matter how fuel-efficient your car is; going 5 m.p.h. bumper-to-bumper is no fun.
  • omaryak, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5... with connections to Las Vegas and Phoenix! (Please?)
    • FranksValli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Bullet train to Vegas! Funded by the casinos of course :) :)
  • trickyt, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5No Maglev?
  • sorcerer05, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Oh yes, but please, please buy the German Transrapid. It runs with non-contact electromagnetic levitation, so no driving noise (except for the wind of course). We have that technology for 30 years now, but since things in Germany never get done (in fact most issues are discussed until the idea is dead) we were not capable of building a commercial line, yet (except for Shanghai). It runs between 190 and 310mph. Please, please, someone buy it!!

    http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/basics.prg?ses ...
    • Pinkertinkle, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1The only ones rich enough to buy it are the Chinese, how ironic.
    • tandy400, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Oh alright you convinced me, will you take a personal check?
  • eavesdrop, on 05/15/2008, -1/+82030? ill be pushing 40.....this needs to speed up.
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4What are you bitching about? I'm already 57. I may be dead by then!

      :)
    • drogbadives, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It's not 2030. It will be finished by 2020. 2030 refers to traffic projections.

      See cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
  • 11b1p, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3Transportation between cities like this isn't the answer. What you need is light rail from the burbs to the city itself. In a configuration that works. In the east we have Acela thats six hours from Boston to DC and that costs usually around $300-$400 round trip. Think it will be any cheaper on the west coast?
    • papastout, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Yes, it will be cheaper. You, my friend, could do well to read Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand) and pay attention to the Story of Reardon Steel. What has happened since those rails that connect DC and Boston since then parallels that story. Metallurgy is technology, granted that it's a very old one, but still making advances - Think of what that could mean towards things like necessary density, weight and overall cost. I'm no blacksmith, but I think it's safe to say a train that travels that fast may not only be of a different breed than Amtrak's Acela, but it just might use a specialized rail system that may be LESS expensive. Who knows, that might cinch the deal for the polis on the west coast.
      • 11b1p, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3We are light years behind Eurpoe and it still costs tons of money to take the ICE train in Germany anywhere. People in general are not gonna commute from city to city. It will be from the outskirts to the city proper that is where the money is made.
        • papastout, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1{nods} - true. Gotta love the EURail pass for us foreign travellers tho =)
    • PunkRockGeoff, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The airlines and road system(therefore your car and Greyhound) are much more heavily subsidized by the government than Amtrak, hence the cost. Also Amtrak is horribly inefficient due to service being laid out more on politics to get funding votes than actual usage. It's only like 2 1/2 hours from DC to NYC with the right of ways and trackage between NYC and Boston dating to the Civil War keeping train speed nowhere near top speed.
  • iith096, on 05/15/2008, -10/+5I think I will pass taking a ride on one of these. Think about the earthquake in China. Traveling at 200MPH + when the big one hits does not sound like fun.
    • Mattwdj, on 05/15/2008, -4/+6lol ur a pussy.
    • drogbadives, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Japan's got a massive high speed rail network and they get tons of earthquakes. They have a very advanced system to stop the trains very quickly if an earthquake is detected. Nobody on a train dies in an earthquake.
    • carnytrash, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3As a San Franciscan that experienced the Loma Prieta quake in 1989 I say what do you want; to live forever?
    • topace3000, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Please never speak again.
  • DeFex, on 05/15/2008, -4/+6This will be cool when they decide to remake the movie "earthquake" or actually have a real one.
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3It would do us all a world of good.
      • teaguecl, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Over 12,000 people died this week due to an earthquake. You can't find a more appropriate way to express your unfounded regional hate of California?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.