Now Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting aboard the 10 billion
Dollar Bullet Train from Sacramento to San Diego with only very limited
stops inbetween. And why not. Schwarzenegger can not run for re-election
because of term limits. Just stick the next governor with it, and hopefully a Democrat. I can see those little wheels spinning round and round in the Terminator's head. Ten billion Dollars could build a passenger rail net that would be of use to most of us. And that would keep a lot of cars off the roads.

Russ Minick's BLOG makes claims of cleaning up the air because of less cars
on the road. How many cars? Since that train will carry but a limited number of passengers to limited destinations, I am afraid that those cars that are not on the road because of it, might not fill the parking lot of a grocery store.

I sure would like to submit to Valley Voices, opposing the train because of its limited service to the Valley communities and the disproportioned cost thereof.
Should I try? What do you think?

One can ask questions to no one in particular, and base conclusions on the non-answers, or one can search for the readily available facts.

According to the California High Speed Rail Authority website (www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov), the high-speed train would lower the number of intercity automobile passengers on highways by up to 70 million annually. Assuming an average of 2 passengers per car, that would mean up to 35 million car trips annually would be eliminated. Even granting that the CHRA's estimates may be on the optimistic side, we're still looking at multiple millions of cars being taken off our freeways.

I think that would fill a grocery store parking lot or two.

Another unmet need financed by borrowing we can't handle. Just like water storage and all the other infrastructure.

We can't make the payments, people. They'll vote to pass the bond, no doubt, because voters don't know what a bond is.

Then, armed with massive deficits, we will raise taxes on business owners to make bond payments. Then they will lay people off - like they are already doing.

Needs are easy to identify. Financing them requires some in depth thinking that our governor is incapable of doing - and apparently neither are the people.

Sure we can make the payments. It's just the political will that's lacking. Are we the 7th largest economy in the world, or not? If Turkey and Vietnam can do it, how can we call ourselves a first-world economy while pleading that we're too poor to build infrastructure?

The future is coming, like it or not. We can prepare for it, or we can bury our heads in the sand and hope all our problems go away - instead of getting worse like they usually do when we do nothing.

Like many progressive ideas, this one may have few bugs in it that are worth our consideration. CDC warns that there are numerous viruses on the horizon which we should be concerned about. In the event of an epidemic, this transportation system (high speed, high volume, long distance) may turn out to be the ideal vehicle for some of these viruses to spread between our major population centers very rapidly. I am not interested in supporting a test of that possibility.

Mike D.
Have you ever had to balance a checkbook, or live within a budget? If you are overdrawn, do you just keep spending?

You seem to be the one sticking your head in the sand, and not addressing that our state legislature has overspent by 20 billion dollars in this years state budget, and how already high taxation is driving businesses out of business, or out of state.

Redpeach, yes, I know how to live within a budget. I have also upgraded my skills and improved my income so that I can afford better things. You seem to be stuck on the idea that income has to be static. It doesn't. And short term savings sometimes translate into lost opportunities down the road. I'm not advocating tossing money into the wind, but "saving" money by failing to build or upgrade infrastructure is foolishness, not prudence.