52% want (CA) bullet train stopped, poll finds (LA Times)

[MADem]

59. Well, from the OP article posted, it looks like more than "anyone" feels like you say I do.

I'm just discussing this issue from all sides--I'm not a cheerleader or a vociferous detractor. I'm weighing the pros and cons, and I am not yet sold on the prospect.

Saying "Don't like it? Leave!" isn't a very good argument in opposition to the points I've raised. The earthquake issue is a real one, and the possibility of undiscovered faults--particularly when all the seismic mapping is not yet done--per the state of CA themselves as was noted in the link I offered--does play into the feasibility of the project.

I can see why people like the idea of it, and I can also see why people think it is a huge stinking greedy rich-get-richer waste of damn money. Frankly, I think high speed trains from coast to coast make more sense than a train that won't be used by the working poor, EVER, but that's just me.

If the goal is to improve transportation in CA, make it easier/affordable for poor and middle class people to use a train, a trolley or bus system, or light rail, instead of them driving some piece of crap car that clogs the freeways and fouls the air.

High speed trains, as someone else in this thread pointed out, ARE conceits for the rich. You don't see poor folk on the ACELA. Why? It costs too damn much. It's cheaper to take the subway to Logan Airport, then take a PLANE from Logan to Baltimore, then take a bus to the Metro, and then take the metro to DC, than take the ACELA from BOS-DC. I've gone to DC dozens of times via this cheap route, and back home again.

Of course, rich people do have a need to get to DC--it's the seat of political power. They also need to go to NYC--it's the seat of economic power. The cost of the tickets, though, is beyond the reach of the working poor or even a middle class person on a regular basis.