Sounds like we are finally on the right "track".

Great I am sick of traveling in the car for endless hours. I hope it goes through.

I couldn't agree more. I really hope this comes to pass.

Europe, Japan etc. are ahead of us because we haven't bothered to care in the past. Suddenly now we're waking up and discovering the hole we've dug for ourselves. We've been very spoiled with our cheap gas and big cars. Those days are over and we aren't prepared for it.

--Our domestic auto industry should be putting out a wide list of Hybrids already and be exploring hydrogen fuel cell cars.

--All new construction should be solar powered so that each building and home supplies it's own power, and uses the grid as a backup.

--We should have high speed rail connecting many major cities across the country.

--States should have their own high speed rail systems in place or in the works.

Imagine the jobs just those three things create.

Much of this would already have been reality or in the works if we had just had the right president and congress in place. And certainly the nearly $750 Trillion we've spent in Iraq so far would have gone a very long way to making these necessities realities.

This is what the future is going to be. We just as well start even if we're way behind.

Seriously it's another rat hole to throw money into while the state circles the drain.How many of these choo-choos across the USA are able to pay for themselves?

I'll bet you would have said the same thing about the Transcontinental Railroad if you were around in the 1800's, Brian. And why do you expect transit to pay for itself? Do highways, airports and harbors pay for themselves? I'm glad we don't live in some Libertarian utopia/nightmare where every public improvement is expected to turn a profit.

Mass transit in a rural areas such as ours, is not feasible. Use your brains. Bullet trains make few stops, which means you will need transportation to your final destination. Forget it if you think you can bullet train to Edwards to catch a show.

This type of transportation works for Europe, were tourism is heavy, but the valley does not enjoy such benefits.

Think about it. For years the relatively small public tranportation system--Fresno Bus Transit has struggled to survive due to lack of revenue. How on earth can a bullet train which will cost $10 billion just to start the project, ever be financially feasable?

Maybe once all the farmland is paved over with housing for illegal immigrants (and we no longer have enough to eat), a bullet train can transport the illegal farmworkers to farms in neighboring states.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is a sinkhole if I ever saw one, and I don't want my paycheck docked anymore than it already is for these hairbrained ideas. If anything, the state needs to cut spending, with a humungous shorfall in funding of 16 billion and counting.

Re: redpeach

How true! (oh! oh! I am afraid to use exclamation marks, lest I am exposed
as a liar.) In Europe there are connections of public and private transportation.

I thought that such train was useless to us around here, when I was sitting in on a presentation in Clovis City Council Chamber, some years ago.

To practically travel on the wings of the wind from Sacramento to San Diego
is sci-fi turned reality. But how many people travel on a regular basis to and fro
those major California cities? And if I remember correctly, lots of farm land would be gobbled up.

For us here in California,
the bullet train would be
prestigious, but hardly utilitarian. I also agree
that public transportation should not be expected to pay for itself, but there
should be a commanding need for it. I had been
spoiled by European go
everywhere conveyances, but
I also was tought fiscal
prudency.

Arguing against high-speed rail on the basis of "fiscal prudency" is a great example of being penny-wise and pound foolish. It's true that most of us don't go to Sacramento, S.F. or L.A. every day, but large numbers of trips are made between those cities every day. Traveling by car or plane for those distances is incredibly inefficient. We got away with it during the era of cheap fuel, but that era is gone forever. If we want to keep whatever competitive edge we have left as the world's 7th or 8th largest economy, we're going to need fast, efficient intercity transit. This isn't for tourists, as Redpeach seems to think. It's about keeping California from slipping into into second-rate status.

To many people, a train ride beats all other mode of transportation.
When vacationing abroad I often rode trains just for the sake of it.

But a train with too many un-occupied seats is not efficient in any category.
Hopefully the planned bullet-train won't have to transverse any bridges on
the verge of falling down.

"Turkey, Morocco, Viet Nam and Iran" what shining examples of great
countries. Turkey uses its transportation mostly for tourism.
Most Turks would not be able to afford to ride on them.

Running the California bullet train along the eastern part of the valley would
indeed gobble up a great deal of farmland. We would just have to bite
the bullet.

And it has become very fashionable to put words into peoples' mouths
in order to win an argument.

1. Even half-full trains would be more efficient than millions of cars with only one or two occupants.

2. The bridges will be new, as will the tracks.

3. Turkey, Morocco, Iran and Vietnam may not be among the leading nations in the world, but that should tell us something. When we're falling being second-and third-tier nations, it's way past time to start catching up.

4. It would no doubt gobble up some farm land. So would adding more lanes to our freeways, or building new freeways. The alternative would be to just do nothing and allow the state's transportation systems to become hopelessly clogged.

5. Who put what words in whose mouth? Where?

I have family in Los Angeles and would go more often if this train were in place. Currently with the price of gas, my round trip to L.A. with three kids would cost about $125 in fuel. This doesn't include the meals and snacks along the way. Not to mention the 4-5 hours driving each way. Forget flying. My wife and I and 3 kids, one a baby, flying would be a nightmare.

Of course with flying or taking the train you need public transportation or a rental car when you get there unless you are meeting someone who lives there. Airports currently have set up quite nicely for car rentals in every city. Train stations would do the same. I'm sure city buses would work themselves into the mix. I would also travel to Disneyland, San Diego, San Francisco, etc. more often if it were easy to do.

I still maintain we need to start thinking more into the future rather than stand by while the band plays "Nearer My God To Thee."

Ok so that's a little dramatic. As for the farms turning over land, those who don't drive out in the farmlands much probably don't know that a great deal of trees and vineyards are getting pulled up for lack of water. I live out here. You can't swing a dead cat around without hitting an orchard pulled up. Water is becoming more expensive and more scarce, not to mention some people think the smelt are more important than irrigating these farmlands for food. But that's another topic.

Doubts about the proposed High Speed Rail for our area were not solely
based on fiscal prudence. It was just one of the components in the equation.

This passionate train rider has nothing against fast and efficient trains. I rode the (reborn) Orient Express, the Mozart, the Johann Strauss, the Paris
Express and others.

But the bullet train should serve a broader spectrum of riders than it will between
Sacramento and San Diego. Since a connecting transportation net is not on the table, why not go to the vicinity of Highway 5. What difference does it really make
from where a valley traveler can't get to anywhere else, but it would conserve our
precious farmland. I am a city person from way back. But I know where my
food comes from. And hopefully not contaminated and unwholesome imports.

No more extra freeway lanes. Stop developing, paving over the renowned fruit basket of the world. The only ones who knew how to manage and live with the available resources of this valley must have been the Indians.

Suggest trains from Fresno to Los Angeles, Los Banos, to Salinas, to Monterey, to Oakhurst or Columbia, e.g. and in spite of my old age I would stand on the corner of Shaw and
Blackstone to campaign for it. But forgive me that I am not all warm and fuzzy
inside over a bullet train buzzing by Clovis, Sanger...and so forth.

First pull up all the tracks over a number of years and then come back with a one track bullet train.

Mike D,

Do you make a habit of taking the statements of others out of context, for political expediancy? This is a forum to exchange ideas, and consider different viewpoints, and valid points.

I did not say a bullet train would be created for tourism. As was clear in my first statement, I only point out that European bullet trains are heavely financed via the tourist patrons. And that would not be the case through the San Joaquin Valley.

Another valid consideration is the gobbling up of farmland by transplants, who will live further out from the cities, because of the convenience of a bullet train to get them to their city workplace. This will create expansive new development of homes, and supporting services...box stores, medical, entertainment venues, etc. etc. etc. This might be good for developers, but bad for preserving the most productive farmland in the world.

Redpeach, I'm sorry if I misconstrued your post, but I'm not taking responsibility for your ambiguity. Your original post didn't say anything about financing by tourists, so your point wasn't as "clear" as you claim it was.

I haven't seen any figures on how much European bullet trains depend on tourists (have you?), but I doubt it's as high as you imply. And California is a major tourist destination, too - high speed rail is designed to connect all the major population centers of the state, not just the Valley.

No doubt a high speed rail line will affect development patterns, just as freeways do now. But the impact on farmland can be minimized by good planning. That's not an insurmountable issue.

Developing more and more urban and/or industrial areas in the most fertile
region of California and conserving that very farmland at the same time is not possible. Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and nothing that comes from the bully-pulpit is going to change that.

It has been my experience, that clinical and objective appraisal invariably weighed in on the side of what is best. In this case, more and more urban development and one fast train of limited utilization, versus food for generations yet to be born.

So let us listen to each other without attempting to invalidate those who are not of like opinion. Mike D might feel that the bullet train is the alpha and omega. Some of us are not so sure about it. We don't need more people here because we can't
supply the water. We cannot grow food on the clay and rocks of the foothills.

That sci-fi technology having become reality shall not be able to function in a vacuum.

Isabell, I find it a bit ironic that you would accuse me earlier of putting words in your mouth, and now you're saying I "might feel the bullet train is the alpha and omega." Where did I say anything remotely like that? Quotes, please.

And by the way, this isn't "sci-fi technology." We're talking about technology that's been in use in other countries for most of my lifetime. And I'm well into middle age.

And I spoke of sci-fi technology having become reality. There is nothing ambiguous about my English. It is concise.

But since you do not even comprehend the metaphor of being the alpha and omega
of whatever, of course I would not be able to quote any usage of it on your part.
It can only be repeated, that your linguistic prowess lies in putting words into peoples' mouths. The bully pulpit only persuades (any opponent) to prudently
shut up.

From the last post I must conclude that I am arguing with a Baby Boomer.
I raised one myself. Not to argue with one is the alpha and omega of my
social intercourse devoid of stress.

I understand the metaphor, Ms. Lawson. It's actually a pretty familiar one from the Book of Revelation. I'm just saying it is inapplicable in this case, as I've never said or implied that high speed rail is any sort of panacea. Nor does it need to be.

Unless you can wave a magic wand that will stop all future population growth from occuring in the state, something like this will be needed. And it would be folly to bypass the state's 6th largest city, and leave us in a backwater in order to protect a few acres of irrigated farmland, as you suggest.

The rest of your post is mostly ad hominem, and doesn't answer my question. A bit out of character for you.

Which of your question is not answered? Mike D does not ask, Mike D tells;
and that statement is ad hominem. Want more? Not only do I know how
to take it, I only know how to dish it out as well. Except, it usually is not worth the effort. I know that you are not, and a BLOG is not.

One of the local political players asked me if the Mike D could stand for
Mike Dages of District 5? I guess we shall have to keep guessing for a
while longer.

I stand corrected, Ms. Lawson. I withdraw the last sentence of my previous post. Thank you for setting me straight.