No, I wouldn’t vote for Prop. 1A, because as nice as a train from San Francisco to LA sounds, I think that California should spend our money on something more important, like paying off our debts. Hmmm…thats an idea to think about; stop borrowing money for something we don’t necessarily need and start getting out of the red.
Yeah, this train would save people money because now they don’t have to fly to San Francisco and it would save time instead of driving, but really, we don’t need a train. People in Southern California don’t ride trains like people do back east like in Chicago or New York, and people probably wouldn’t want to sit on a train for almost 3 hours.
But, this prop. would cost us normal people $2,000 over about a 30 year period. If they want to raise our taxes, they better be doing something better than building a train to take people back and forth from San Francisco to LA. Like I said earlier, it sounds nice, but I wouldn’t be voting yes on this prop.
I have a feeling that a lot of people are probably going to disagree with me, but I would have to say that I would vote yes. I am absolutely for any kind of long distance public transportation.
I say this because I use public transportation to get myself from the LA County to the San Fernando Valley. Often. Typically, it takes me two buses and two trains to get there. Altogether, it takes about five hours to cross a 58 mile distance which if driven directly by car instead, would only take an hour. An hour is my waiting time at the train station in Pasadena. If we increased public transportation, the distance from LA to San Francisco specifically, it would be a lot faster to reach the family and friends I do have up there, it would open up more jobs for people, and it would help the environment as well. Additionally, I probably wouldn’t be spending as much on commuting.
Imagine the opportunities that would be opened by having this train. College students could live at home in LA and still apply to colleges in NorCal and commute. Especially since it would be cheaper than flying out back and forth.
We rely on our cars too much to get from Point A to Point B. I think California needs to broaden its horizons, get a new perspective on things, and try something new.
I would have to say no to proposition 1A. The oppostions on wiki are greater then the positive side of this. I mean it’s a great idea, but we’re always in debt enough, and can’t afford another 30 years of debt. Money will be brought in by mass use, but how much would this help our debt problem/raise? 19.4billion to pay off in 30years just to build it. along with another 1billion yearly to maintain it.
Also we’d be ruining hundreds of parks and wildlife reserves. I also agree with wiki, to save money but make things more efficiant we could just improve what public transportation we already have. This will save money, improve public transportation and more people would use it.
I say no to proposition 1A.
For propistion 1a, it’s kind of a tough decision because theres two sides of this propisition you can go for.
Okay so one side you can go for is to vote yes ofcourse. Well because having transportation that helps people with long distance can help us and the environment in way. Using the train can avoid the traffic that we all love to hate so we can get to our destination faster. And since we all depend on cars way to much, because were lazy, too many cars causes air pollutions unless you have a hybrid and what not then that’s another story.
And the other side to think of proposition 1a is to vote no because we all know that they should use the money for something more useful to us and more effective. For instance the whole money issue we are having to deal with right now. And if we keep using money for other things and not trying to pay off our debt it will never be solved and would have to raise money prices for citizens and it will cost a whole other problem for families not being able to afford the things they need. And it would be a mess in the future.
So to this proposition i’m kind of iffy with my decision because im kind of see both points of views, but im not really liking this whole money issue so i think no, so that they can at least try to start paying off the debt and wait for helpful trains after we can avoid money problems.
I’ve been on a train once in my life. If you count subways, you can bump that number up to about … five – but that was in New York. I used the train to get from California to Ohio and that was about a three day trip. My dad was especially excited for me and my sisters to travel by train because he never has. The point is – we commuters don’t use trains here on the West coast. They have never been a popular mode of transportation. Although they are environmentally friendly AND would save us some traffic and gas, California has never been too big on trains.
I’m going to have to agree with Kameha on this one. As nice as a train would be, we just don’t have that kind of money. We’re already swimming in debt and this train isn’t even guarenteed! Even if High-Speed Rail Authority came through, we wouldn’t see this train until 2030. [Think of it in terms of age -- the class of '09 will be reaching their forties!] Even if the money was spread out between all high-speed rail corridors, I don’t think it will be put to good use. The fact that we’d be ruining wildlife preserves and parks [which might loose their maintenance because of budget cuts] doesn’t help.
Looking at the proposition as a whole – possible losses and gains – it just doesn’t seem worth it. I would vote no on Proposition 1A.
there is always two sides in a argument. this proposition has its benifits but also its flaws. in this case supposly it is going to reduce 12 billion of CO2. But in the Con side there is no guarantee that the project would ever be done. that can be a problem. But in the end if things even if we had faith in the promise of this plan we still have china or south america poluting the enviornment. So really it betters the situation of global warming but it doesn’t give a exact solution.
Therefore i wouldn’t vote for this proposition because it really doesn’t give a solution to the problen of global warming.
I think Proposition 1A is a good idea because there are many people who go out there for business and come back home in one day. It would save the hassle with gas and airline tickets. But, I would vote no on Proposition 1A. It is not the time to start a project like this with our economy barely hanging on and not to mention the debt that we are in. We would pay the money and then we wouldn’t reap the rewards far off in 2030 not only that but there is no guarantee finish. We are already cutting our spending, I would rather see the education system and health care receive this money than the transit.
I don’t have a problem with the transit system from LA to San Fran it would actually save money and time for those who commute from San Fran to LA. I know from experiencing the bullet train in Japan that it saved us money and took us only 2 hours to get from Tokyo to Kyoto. Other wise we would have to spend more money on airline tickets which cost more over there because the value of the dollar went down. So in the future when we balanced the economy then we can start talking about the transit because it would be helpful to get us off being dependable on foreign oil. I think that would be our next step after the economy, becoming more independent on resources like oil.
No, there is no reason why I would vote for such a railroad to be built. Even if the railroad where to remove 12 billion pounds of CO2, This does not ensure that all the other cars in Southern and Central California will still cause an equal amount of pollution if not more. Secondly, if a person needs to go to San Francisco to work, then they should be living there. I do not know of many people who have to go from Anaheim to San Francisco on a daily or weekly basis. Plus, it appears that this bill has been attempted many times before. What proof is there that this time will be any different. Also, wouldn’t it be a little bit cheaper, if currently existing railroads were just expanded so that they would reach San Francisco? This way the railroad would not need to be started from scratch, and this in turn would probably be a lot cheaper than building a whole new railroad.
I’ve only been on a train once and its not that great.
I would not vote for Prop 1A.
I think its ridiculous to spend such a huge amount of money on a train system. California is in a pool of debt. Why drown into more?
If California really wanted to spend such an insane amount of money, they should be using it for education or bettering communities. There are a lot of cities that need to be fixed and cleaned. There are schools falling apart. We need to spend it on things that actually matter, not a train. Its not that useful.
Plane tickets dont cost much. And besides, people who travel from LA to San Fran are usually workers and business people. Their company would pay for the ticket. Why would they need to worry about getting to their destination?
I also agree with Ian King. It would probably be A LOT cheaper if we built the train on existing roads. A whole new railroad is too expensive.
It is also to time consuming to build the train. Imagine how long it would take to build something that goes from LA to San Fran.
Prop 1A is a good idea and if we had the excess money I would vote for it. But seeing
that we are already 15 billion dollars in debt we don’t have the money, so I would not vote
for Prop. 1A. Even though Prop 1A would cause less traffic, less money for commuters to spend on gas, and possibly less pollution, it would cause hardship in our economy. Here in southern California we already have a well working train system, such as the metrolink, that works perfectly fine in my view. So commuters can already fine ways of using trains or carpooling with others to make things easier on them with out the state having to dish out the 19 billion dollars.
Proposition 1a, in my opinion, seems like a good idea but not the right timing. We have a problems in the economy as it and we shouldnt add on more than what can we handle. Also the time to complete this project make its seem so unrealist. Then using parks and wildlife refuges for the land that would be use for this, it would cause more harm than help. I dont want to put this idea completely out but for the time being I said say no. With that said I say no on proposition 1A.
It sounds like a great idea at first, but thinking about it more, right now is not a good time for this.
Where are we going to get 647 million dollars for the next few years? All that’s on the news right now is how we’re practically in a new Depression.
yes, better transportation is exactly what California needs. A train would be great, but why so much money? Right now, I’m more worried about my education than how i’m getting to San Francisco.
Meanwhile, the airlines are always giving pretty good deals from LA San Francisco.
So while Prop 1A can be good for some people by saving gas and time(but, really, how much do people go from LA to SF? is it really enough to make a train?), it’s bad for the state. We just can’t afford it.
I think we can wait a few years for this one.
I think that prop 1a is has several advantages. like how los angeles wouldnt be as dependent on foreign oil as it is today and thus gas prices would be much lower. also, it would reduce alot of pollution.
On the other hand, the plans for the route pass through protected wildlife areas, it is very expensive, and it will take too much time.
I would not vote for prop 1a because i think that that money can be better spent, especially if the high speed train isnt going to be in use until 2030. i also believe that while it will reduce gas prices it will be is such a long time from now that gas will have already been lowered significantly.
This prob 1a is a brain scratcher it has a good side and bad side to it. Sure it would be nice to travel to the Golden gate bridge in under 2 hrs and who wouldn’t love to come to Hollywood every now and then, but the issue today is our economic status is in turmoil at then moment. We simply cannot afford to spend so much money on a train.Ballot pedia org states that Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority with that in mind we can tell that this train could save us in many ways and help the environment but at the same time it will taking money from our pockets, which is money that we don’t really have enough of right now.
i would not vote for this prop1a to much money and at this age im not supposed to worry about money that mnuch and if seeing this already makes my brain hurt then there is a definite problem with prop1a
I vote No on proposition 1A!
I vote no because it doesn’t make any sence to me why we would put ourselves in more debt than we already are!! We have already a 15 billion debt we can’t just add 647 million dollars more! We should be paying as much of it off as possible.
From my point of view there is nothing wrong with the trains we use today, such as the metrolink. I used to go on the metrolink all the time. It basically does the same thing as prob 1A is telling us about. It is helping people save money on gas, it gets people from point A and point B. So it’s not as fast but then there’s always planning ahead, and if you know you need to be some where by this time, obviouly you need to leave sooner.Instead of trying to make something new, we should try and make the old things more high tech. Make some arangements to the metrolink to try and fit prob. 1A, then it wouldn’t be so expensive.
I vote NO on proposition 1A!
First of all, almost $10 billion dollars is a lot of money to spend that we do not have. In my opinion, we should take the money that was going to be spent on the train, and put that money back into the school budget. The budget cuts were taken from the wrong place, and our generation, and the ones following, are having a hard time paying for school. We should put that money back into the schools for new technology, a better learning environment, scholarships, grants, financial aid, etc.
Second of all, where are we going to get that money from? We are already in dept, and the financial crisis has hit many families. I do understand that they are trying help with pollution and save commuters time and money. But with the money crisis that we are in right now, I personally do not think that building this train is the best idea for now.
At first when I read what proposition 1A was about I immediately thought this could be a good thing for society with gas prices going off the roof. It has its good sides, it makes traveling much faster, reduces foreign oil and reduces air pollution. Which I agree will have good impact in both society and the environment. But then again as we start progressing and finding new projects we start adding more money to the debt list. We’re in a financial crisis as it is and making a new way for transportation is not the way of solving our problem with money issues. I’m not saying its a bad idea but i think we should put the new train project to the side for now until we find a way out of this whole financial crisis that America is going through.
So would I vote for proposition 1A? If this was a few years from now I would. But for now I definitely wouldn’t because I believe that even if this project does become successful how are we going to pay $19.4 Billion and on top of that the billions of dollars that CA already owes. Which indeed will hurt the economy even more.
If i had to vote to vote, i would vote no on proposition 1A. In the first place, we don’t have that money to spend. the transportation would be a good investment, but not at this time. Firstly because of the resent metro incident and secondly, it wouldn’t be done till 2030. any investment in that project would be non beneficiary to the current financial crisis.
I think proposition 1 is idiotic. I think so because we are way in debt right now and every body has had it with the money crisis, like they’re already complaining to the max, you know. Why would the High Speed Rail Authority even suggest this proposition? What we need less of is getting in to more debt. They should deny this proposition and replace it with another important proposition like how to recover funds for education. I would not vote for proposition 1 because it’s too expensive and we certainly don’t have money in our budget for this project. I tried to find if people actually went too work every day from around here like San Bernardino to San Francisco, but I couldn’t find any answers. Then I searched how long it will take to drive from L.A to San Francisco and it said it would take about 6 hours. Ok now I tried to put it all in to real life and figured out that its not possible because to go and come back is 12 hours and people with full time jobs work 8 hours so it cant be. I think the people who do actually have a job like that probably have a working schedule and lots of vacations. That seemed logical to me because I think only people who work for cooperations would live from that far of a distance. I Like Ian’s idea of starting from existing rail lines and continuing from there, so then it would be cheaper and easier, and have the same ending results as well as being completed a little bit faster.
A lot of people might think Proposition 1A is unnessary because they have their own trasnportation. But for the people who dont have a car ( like me). Proposition 1A would be a crazy good idea. However it is probably not the right time to bring up such proposition. First of all the econemy crisis are a major problem. we are already in a huge debt. It is hard to spend another billions dollars on trains. Second they estimate that the train system might be completed in 2030. thats 22 years from now. It is really a long time for this proposition to start making some profit and its purpose.
So, i would say no for now(if i can vote), but if our econemy recovers tomorrow dramatically, then everything changes.
After reading about how proposition 1A would lower CO2 emissions, reduce traffic, and reduce our reliance on foreign oil I thought that this new proposition would be a really good for California but than I went on to read the opposition to it and thats when I decided this was a pretty bad idea.
The reasons why this is a bad idea is because they are planning on spending billions of dollars to build this new high speed train but at the moment we do not have the money to do that and if we did this would be a bad way to spend our money. But the main reason why I think that this is a bad idea is because with the construction of this train it means that wildlife sanctuary’s and parks will be severely impacted by this.
I vote NOOO on Prop 1A.
I don’t really think Prop 1A is a great idea at this time. As everyone knows by now, the US is greatly in debt. Spending even more money on a railroad from LA to San Francisco is ridiculous, at this rate we are NEVER going to pay off that debt. Maybe later it would be a good idea, but it depends on the impact it’s going to have on the environment. We have to think of what it would take to build it, as in are they going to declare eminent domain? How will it affect the surrounding communities? If they don’t destroy any homes or anything to build it, then yes i would votes yes, but not at this time.
Personally as good as this idea sounds on paper I dont think we would really benefit from it. Why would we keep borrowing money if we are already in a deep debt. To my understanding the money was already borrowed and this is what they came up with as a use for it. I guess it would help people to not spend so much on gas but then again only certain people would benefit fromt his because its only from southern california to san francisco. Im not sure if it makes any extra pit stops but if it doesnt it would only help people that live in the cities where the train stops. I think we could put the money to better use by paying for student programs or just paying off this debt that seems to not be going anywhere. I would vote no on proposition 1a, its not the brightest idea to borrow money for things that would only be beneficial for part of the state of California especially because the debt gets bigger for EVERYONE in california and not everyone is using this train.
My first reaction to proposition 1A was,” What are these people insane!” even after I read the positive things about prop. 1A I still thought these people were crazy. How could anyone come up with an idea like this? We are already deep in debt as it is and these people are using our debt like a gigantic credit card.
Now, the whole idea of a credit card is to borrow money from a company and pay it back later. When people have credit cards they use them to spend money. The most normal thing is to spend your money on things that you need, but then come along the compulsive buyers who spend, spend, and spend on things that they don’t need at all. To me, the people that came up with the idea of a high speed train are what I call compulsive buyers, but people like me who have, what I call, common sense know that this idea is totally wacko!
Now, looking at the entire plan I just don’t like the idea of destroying wildlife parks, reserves, and refuges for a project that isn’t even guaranteed to be finished and even if it is guaranteed it won’t be finished until 2030, who knows if we’ll even be alive by then. Plus this train is supposed to help the earth by reducing global warming, but it will only reduce it in a certain area the rest will be just as polluted as ever; and we have to be more concerned about saving our species from extinction, but the way the plan for Prop. 1A is turning out it will destroy from 140 to 180 parks, reserves, and refuges that are helping this cause. So I say, vote no on proposition 1A because it has no purpose, besides that of consuming, and it won’t be helping our environment it will actually be destroying it!
I think that Proposition 1A is a good idea for transportation. It will be quicker for people to travel around, which can mean people can be looking for jobs from one city to another without having to worry about time if they can organize their schedule. Except, even though it is a very good idea, it is being brought up at a very bad time.
I would vote no, because we still have money problems and California is in debt. Why would they want to drag us into even more debt than we can really pay. Our economy will just fall apart if this passes. It also disrupts wild animals and parks, which is a loss of lives and loss of green environment. If they can fix our economy I would agree, but at this time, its a no.
i think the idea or outcome of the train is a good idea like the decreasing of pollution, saving money from high gas prices when you travel, reduces California’s dependancy on foreign oil, and would reduce traffic on the roads but what i don’t agree with is the state lending out $9.95 billion dollars.
I would vote no because they picked a bad time to barrow money from the state. Learning from our last blog that the U.S. is in bad financial shape the state shouldn’t lend out large amounts of money and 30 years is a long time to be paid back even with interest.
I would absolutley vote no on Prop. 1A. California and the whole fresking country are already so far in debt and in economic crisis, this would just add to the problems that this state in particular has. We spemd more money and have higher taxes than most states and we are in the worst shape in a long time. There is no praticle need for the train. Family and friends can wait for me to drive to them.
As for students comuting to school, oh welll live there or drive, because if you want to go to school up in Northern California and you vote yes on this, then what do you think is goin to happen to your school costs. How much do you imagine you will be paying to fund this billion dollar proposition. And the estimated time for completion is in 2030 whick is a good two decades away.
California need not broaden its horizons. California needs to focus on the present econmic disaster that is good on today! California and the U.S. should stop looking to the future and should focus on whjat is haapening here and now, because if we dont fix the current problems then there may not be much of a future to look foward to.
Just the thought of having a train that could take me from LA to San Francisco in less than 3 hours is just amazing and it would do the world a favor by not emitting as much CO2 gases. The train would also help people save more money and is going to be really handy when it comes to traveling.
On the other hand, because there is no guarantee that the project will ever be finished. I don’t think it would be a good idea to spend money on something that isn’t for sure. If the project was never going to be finished, that would be a HUGE waste of money that could’ve been used for paying off someone California’s debt.
I would vote no on Proposition 1A. California is spending money they don’t have. If someone is going to pass a bill about anything dealing with transportation, it better be on highway improvements because our infrastructure is falling apart. Recently there was a terrible train crash in Chatsworth. After that happened wouldn’t you assume people would fear going on trains? If California wasn’t in debt this would be a reasonable idea, but since we are we need to conserve as much money as we can.
I would vote no on proposition 1A. We do not need a railroad that goes from the top to the bottom of the state, that is what airplanes are for. Our state is already deep in debt and don’t need to spend 9 billion dollars on a project like that. Especially when the economy is messed up so badly.
If we are to use a lot of money it should be used on stimulating the economy and on our schools. The money could also be used for paying off our debt. California doesn’t need to be spending extra right now.
Having a train connecting California could also mess up the airline companies. If the train took over inner state transportation than the Airline companies would lose money and that could be very bad.
From what I read about Proposition 1A it seems like a stupid idea. First of all $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to get Proposition 1A started (because it always goes over the amount they say it will cost). Do not get me wrong Proposition 1A would have been a good idea way back in the day when California was not in this hole of which we are trying to dig our selves out of. Proposition 1A would have been good when the United States economy was good or better then it is right now. But since California’s economy is not strong right now, as well as the United States it kind of seems to be a dumb idea to spend $9.95 billion on a train that would not get used that often.
I do not thing the train will get used that often mainly because of the recent train crash not to long ago. I would think people would be afraid to ride a train after that, since people usually get scared about things like that easily. However I do think that Proposition 1A is a good idea IF it came about back when California, and the United States was not in such a big hole right now. So for wether I would vote on Proposition 1A or not my answer is no; mainly because it is just not the right time to have this on the ballet right now.
I am not sure if I would vote for Proposition 1A. I would vote yes for the reason that I use public transportation often to go to and from school. Other people that also take the bus would understand that it is difficult to always rely on the bus. Some bus drivers are always tardy and cause you to be late. It is also annoying to have to be waiting at the bus stop because of the weather. During the summer it is really hot and during the winter it is really cold. Another factor, is that it is time consuming. For example just to get from Baldwin Park to Pomona, it takes around an hour when on the freeway it takes less than 15 minutes. That is if you get lucky and your buses are there on time.
On the other hand I would not vote for the proposition 1A for the reason that I don’t think it is the best time to do it. We don’t need another reason to be in debt. If the proposition would actually make it through it would only get us in a deeper hole. With the financial crisis that is slowly taking over the country, there are much better reasons to spend our money on.
I don’t know if I would vote for Proposition 1A. I would want to because I think that public transportation needs a lot of improvement but, then I wouldn’t because I don’t think this is the best time to use billions of dollars on a high speed passenger train.
When I had just glimpsed at the article and my eyes “Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds” without ANY hesitation my thought was “hell no”. No, period, end of freaking story. I don’t give a darn of how much money it will save commuters and expand transportation options. First of all, where in the freaking world would the money come from?! Please, I would like to know. Would we print out some money or something? Sadly, money does not grow on trees. It’s an absurd waste of money. Period. We already have so much transportation crap anyway so why not expand it instead of starting from scratch?! With all that said, I believe my answer is quite clear.
This is really hard to decide. I think if it gets passed it can be a really great thing for people who commute that far, it also might encourage people to travel more to the North. I think me and my friends might just go because it’s there and not as bad as driving 6 hours. Not only that but it can help the enviorment if alot of people use it.
On the other hand, California is already in a major crisis with the budget. Investing that much money into a train might not be the greatest of ideas right now. The money can go back to schools or something more important.
In the end I think I would probably vote No on it. There are more urgent matters at hand than the commute from the south to the north. If there is a way to get money it should be invested in a way to end the debt in California. I would love to see the train built one day, but because of the current situation I dont think it would be wise.
Proposition 1A has some good ideas in, but come on! Do these people not realize that we are in enough debt as it is? Spending Billions and Billions on a train system that isn’t even guaranteed to be completed isn’t a very smart idea in my opinion. And even if this train was completed, it would take over 20 years for us to even have access to it. Sure there are pros and cons to the train, but this thing would just put us into even more debt. One of the supports to this proposition is that it would reduce highway traffic congestion, but what do you think is going to happen during those 20 years when the thing is being built? Sure it will help in the long run, but can you imagine how much traffic and problems there are going to be for the citizens while the project is in progress. A good thing about building this train system though is that it would reduce California’s need for foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, but that is still no reason to use up so much money when our state is already in a bad situation. What California needs to do is focus on what’s happening to our economy right now instead of focusing on what is going to eventually happen and they need to fix it soon before the situation gets worse
I am not sure how I would vote on this proposition, because, as with everything else, there are really good arguments both for and against it. First of all, I don’t think that we should be investing in something of this caliber at the moment. I think the priority right now is to figure out how to spend less, not more. If we have those kinds of resources, then they should be used for solving some of the more immediate problems. Another thing is I don’t think we should be destroying any of our wildlife preserves. Some people don’t realize how much we impact our environment and hurt it. Now, it would be great to have a means of quick transportation through California. Some of the problems it would solve would be having less people driving their cars on the road, less gas used, and a much easier commute for a lot of people. But, I don’t think Prop 1A is the answer right now. Use our money to fix the public transportation systems already here, promote carpooling and other environment friendly means of transportation. So I wouldn’t vote yes on 1A at this point in time. Is it a good idea for future projects? I think so, as long as we have our other issues under control.
Even though Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the rail expansion I do not think that it is such a good idea to have a train from Los Angeles to San Fransico. So, I personaly would not vote for California to fund a 40 billion high speed train because we have more important things to take care of. And they estimate that the whole train system will not be completed until around 2030. I think that in all the time we waste building that system, california could be using that money to pay off debts and get the economy back on a good level. Or if not then just fund more useful things, for example school funding is never a wrong way to go. there are many poor schools that cant afford good materials, so that is where funding comes in and gives the school new and improved supplies. I dont know to who this idea is a “good” idea, because it really isint. California Should NOT be spending money that they really dont have. And its true that its a faster way to get from LA to San Fransico, but its not worth spending all that time and money for it. I think california people should drive there themselves or if they dont want to waste gas they could even take a walk there. we are the fatest nation in the world any way. So In Conclusion I say NO! on Prop. 1A.
I think that Proposition A is a good idea because I consider it a good idea to be able to transport from Los Angeles to San Francisco in such a short time but If I had to vote for it right now I wouldn’t. I do not think that we are ready to be spending so much money right now because we are really in debt and why make the situation worse. I think we have bigger things to waste our money on instead of tansportation. We already do have transportation which is our cars so really that isn’t an emergency to do. That money they are planning on investing they should invest it on education because they are doing all this budget cuts on education and making us as students take longer to be able to graduate from college. Also if they start on this work it would make traffic worse around the area where they are going to create it and they aren’t going to finish soon but until a lot of years from now. In 2030 we are going to be very old so were not having going to have that possibility to be able to use it.
In conclusion, I don’t think this is a bad idea at all but I just don’t see it the right time to do it maybe later on when the economy is better then probably they would get my vote at least saying “yes” but right now if I could vote I would vote “no”
i would vote no on Proposition A because i do not believe we are in the perfect situation to be making new things and spending money on things that really arent needed. i mean yes it does sound convinent for many people, but where exactly are we going to get all this money for it. we cant even pay off this debt we are in and were asking people for money so i really dont understand where they think theyre going to get this money. i think that the money they are planning on using for this propostition should be used for educational purposes. with all the budget cuts that have been going on its pretty crazy how they can be focusing on stuff like this. so basically i vote no on proposition a.
I believe that this proposition is a good idea, but there are pros and cons. Now the idea to have a railway that travels to northern California to southern California is a very good idea. The proposition has many positive aspects to it such as: Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.
Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports.
Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases.
Just to name a few.
But I do have to say that even thought this is a good idea and that I would vote for it, now is not the time. With the entire financial crisis going on in the country and the state I don’t think we could afford such a huge project. We are more than 2 billion dollars in debt and we don’t need another 600 millions to add to it.
State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year.
Overall this is a great idea and I would vote for it, but it’s a better idea for the future.
Ever since I can remember I have been taking trains throughout Southern California. Trains make a easier, reliable, and more safe transportation. I would most definitely vote yes on Proposition 1A. As we all already know in South California we have a major smog issue going on, by having a train transportation set up would help get rid of global warming and protect future generations. By making this train it would also benefit us because it would reduce congestion on our state highways to make it easier for other people traveling. Also, it would be a more effective and faster way to get to San Francisco and back to Los Angeles. Then when the train is finished and complete it will help save people money while gas prices are still rising. Yes, I do already realize that our state is in a major financial crisis right now, but I think in the outcome it will help us more then hurt us.
I think that proposition 1A is a good idea. There is a lot of business people who go back and forth from Los Angeles to San Francisco along with tourist and people with family in northern or southern California. My Family used to drive to Sacramento every other weekend to visit a family member who lived up there. It took us 6 hours to get there. Having a train that would take less time would have been a life saver. And with the price of gas now and the cost to fly I think that having a train would be a great alternative. With our economy the way it is I’m not sure if it’s good timing. But I think that people will embrace it and use the train and it could pay it self off as long as everything goes as planed.
Come to think of it, is Proposition 1A really necessary? A train to transport from San Francsico, Los Angeles, and Anaheim? It is said to be complete by 2030, thats 22 years from now. The cost is very expensive, this country is already in debt, why are they asking for more unessary things? It is said that the idea of this train will reduce CO2, that sounds great, but how bout the cars that are still gunna be out there, or different CO2 coming from other enviroments all over the world, yea it will help but in 22 years. The world is already contiminated to much. And this idea of this train has been delayed already four times, what if it happens again, it is a waste of time and money. This money can be use for other things, like repairing todays transportation, upgrading them to help the environment, instead building something extra.
So as you can see, I would not vote for Propsition 1A.
I like the idea of having this transportation system, but I think at this time we shouldn’t be using more money then we have to. We are already in a huge dept and we should first get a handle on that. I also don’t think we should be hurting many wildlife refuges, parks, and open spaces, to build this train system. We should take the transportation systems we have now and make them better. Improve them instead of building something else with tons of money. Even flying from LA to San Francisco, or vice versa, isn’t that bad. It’s not like some crisis or something that we need this train right now. I know it would be cheaper to take the train, if it was built, but right now it’s not worth it. For Proposition 1A I am going to have to say I would not vote for it.
Well although prop 1A sounds good and everything its kind of not the in California’s best interest to be spending mass amounts of money on a shuttle connecting LA to San Fran. If people want to go back and forth then why don’t they just take the road trip or fly cause what California as a state really needs right now is to focus on more national issues because the US is not really in a good place, jobs are hard to find, money for people now is becoming more and more scarce, and the cost of living has been booming these days cause of some pretty dumb reasons. I would vote no on prop 1A. Its in th right place but at the wrong time and we need to wait a few years to get back on our feet and then maybe we will consider it.
When i first read the proposition i thought that this woulod be aq wonderful idea. We could “kill a few birds with one stone” we could travel faster, safer, and use less gas. This would benefit us a lot. however i instantly had a change of heart as i continued to read on. To be completed in 2030? Thats a long time from now and we all know that we don’t have the money. The cost, we have to pay 40 billion dollars that we don’t have for this railroad system. So yes there are pros and cons to this train system. Maybe in a few years when we are no so deep in debt we could possibly try and create this railroad. As of today this year in this debt i would have to say no on prop 1A.
So i read the whole Prop 1A and i got to say REALLY? come on everyone knows we dont have that kind of money to be wasting especially now where or economy is going bad. I don’t know why would this be even considered I mean yeah it would be good and less pollution means good things for Ms. Earth but we have to first take care of this whole “crisis” going on with money and stuff then worry about crossing from L.A. to San Francisco in a faster way. So i say NO dont do this, yet.
Proposition 1A has many things that can benefit us in the future but it can also hurt us in the future as well. First of all, having a transportation system that would go from San Francisco to Los Angeles can be helpful to us when we are traveling because we can reach from one of those destinations in a short amount of time rather than traveling by car. It can also reduce the consumation oil and gas so we wouldn’t use it as much.
As much as all of these reasons are true, I would vote no for proposition 1A. Of course one of the main reasons is obvious. It is that we are in a big, big budget crisis right now and if we agreed to this, then it would make it worse and then it would be too late to fix the economy. I don’t think that we would really need this. If we did, then this project would take more than 25 years to build. I just think that there would be no point into this except that you can get to your destination faster. Other than that, it is basically an easy call whether to vote yes or no to proposition 1A
Clearly we do not have the money to support this. I have no idea who thought up this “great” idea, but obviously… they were not thinking. I’m going to have to say, NO if I could vote I would surely not vote yes on Prop 1A. Sure it’s a good idea in the long run… if we had any money to 1. build it and 2. run it. Less pollution appears to be the only thing on the public’s mind right now, which is important yes but their is not much we can do to solve that over night. It’s a long process and is going to take some time to clean up. They should be using their brain right, do some basic math a realize OH we have money… this can wait.
I do feel like it would be amazing for California to have a railway that can go from Los Angeles to San Fransico. It would be a way for people to travel faster, it would improve traffic, and apparently be better on the environment too. But I don’t think the issue is how good of an idea it is, but whether it’s a feasible idea to think about pursuing given our current economic status. A couple of weeks ago we learned about the 15.2 billion dollar budget gap California is trying to fill. Last week we thought about how budget cuts are going to effect our everyday life. I’ve learned from these latest blogs that Califronia needs to stop spending money we do not have. That kind of spending is what has put the state in this financial posiition, and I don’t think issuing more bonds or borrowing money is the way we’re going to see our way out of it. Another reason I would vote no on prop 1a is because of the time it would take for the project to get finished, and the fact that there is no guarantee it will get done. It seems to be just a good idea.
Proposition 1A seems reasonable. I haven’t actually visited San Fransisco so I have no idea how long it currently takes to get there. I do know it takes awhile, but I don’t fall into the category of people needing to go there often if at all. With the economy the way it is right now I don’t know if we should be spending $9.95 billion on a $40 billion dollar high-speed train, but it’s not an outrageous amount. Plus, $950 million goes towards other rail lines to help with connectivity to the high-speed train. It’s not a bad prop, I would probably vote on it just because I know San Fransisco is a famous place where a lot of people DO go. I know some people don’t like Air Planes so a train might be a good alternative. But technical support for it would be costly, to manage 800 miles of track for the train. The charge for tickets would need to be high to pay back the money we spend on the train, especially in this time of economic crisis. 2030 is far away as well, so profit will not show for awhile, a very long while.
It’s a hard choice, I know it would help the environment, and in my opinion the cost is okay, but it would defiantly cause financial problems. That’s just my opinion.
After reading information on Proposition 1, I thought it is a good idea only for people who need it. Because not everyone will need that transportation. Besides, where is the money going to come from, I know that many companies, donors, are willing to donate money. But are they going to pay for all of the costs? What if something happens during the construction and needs more money, where are we going to get the money from? From the tax payers? I don’t think that is fair to them. If we have the money to build a brand new railroad system, why don’t we use that money to pay off all our debts first or improve our medical system or educational system? To me, it is wasting money, regardless donated or not. I would vote NO! Plus, if building a new railroad means destroying parks, homes, and other things I don’t think we should do it. I think we should solve all the problems we have now first, and then move on. If we don’t do that first, we are just asking for more problems.
As i started to read this i thought it would be a great idea. Getting from LA to San Francisco in only 2 hours and 40 minutes would be great, especially if I go to college in San Francisco. After i continued to read the information it states that it would cost 40 billion dollars and it would not be built until 2030. As of right now, our country is already in debt 15.2 billion dollars; building this for 40 billion dollars would not be a wisse decision. Because of these reasons i would vote no on proposition 1a.
Where are they planning to get all of this money? Seriously. Everything is going under because of the lack of money. So now they want to try and squeeze out more? It’s only going to make everything harder on everyone economically. It’s only going to make everything harder on everyone economically. Its will only make more taxes people have to pay making the rest of the world more poor. It won’t even be done until 2030. So we won’t even have profit on it, or pay any money back for 20 years.
I would say no on this because if you think about it, We are the ones who are going to be paying for it, but we aren’t the ones who will be able to enjoy it. 22 years from now it would be done. Another 20 years from then is probably when we MIGHT get anything back. By then, depending on the economical status, it won’t be that much better. I don’t think it is really worth it.
I think whoever votes yes on this prop needs to get the inside scoop on whats going on with our economy. If they do not know all the details they should at least know that everything is going out of business. I think we should keep this money in case we have a major and I mean major emergency. If we keep borrowing money in the end we are going to end up with nothing. Just think of it as these banks that loaned people money who could not pay the loans back. It is not a smart this to do. Also the one of our major businesses might go under, the car business. You think if we build a train from LA to San Francisco we are going to make more money? I think we are going to lose more money and ruin a major part of the car business. Don’t forget on all the money that we spend on gas. I don’t think it would be smart to lose all of that money. I don’t even know why they would even think of a prop like this. Maybe it’s a scam….
This proposition sounds good on paper but would it really be all that helpful? I like that it would be faster to get from one palce to another but it also means that we are going to be spending money that we barely have. They could be using the money to improve the roads and transportation systems we already have instead of starting from scratch. If they started a new project how do we know they’ll finish it. They could be using the money to help schools. If it’ll take 30 years to build I don’t think that it’s worth building it.
Proposition 1a sounds really good when you read it online. It sounds like it would really benefit people who travel for long distances and, i bet would, reduce greenhouse gases. Also it sounds like it would benefit many commuters who travel regularly on trains and/or buses. Proposition 1a definitely seems to be working towards a better fuel- reducing transportation method for commuters.
However, California should be worrying about how to pay the 15 billion dollars back that they owe before they start digging in to more projects. Maybe for another state that didn’t have a financial crises like we do, this would be something beneficial, but for us it would just dig us deeper in the hole.
I would not vote for proposition 1a, as goo as it sounds. Who is to guarantee us that this project will actually be completed? With such an unstable economy how are we to be sure that the state government will not have to freeze or completely close off this project sometime in the future? Overall it is just a waste of money that we don’t have. Like i have said California needs to stop acting like a girl with a credit card at the mall. We need to be realistic. Realistically speaking, California, at the moment has to plan towards saving and cutting back from these types of projects that might benefit society but are not vital to us.
This proposition would be great if we wernt in the position that we are in now. Our economy is struggling right now because of money we dont have or using money for not important things right now. I mean, building an extension from San Fransisco to Los Angeles in 2 and plus hours would be wonderful, but how are people going to pay to get on the train when they are in debt. We as Americans need to stop jumping to other projects and solve the main source so we can produce other projects. Alot of people are in debt right now and using money for a railroad track seems silly to me. Also, they’ve stated that the project wont be finished until 2030, wonder if the project never becomes finished, that was a waste of 40 billion dollars.Yes, there is a lot of pros and little cons for this arguement; but the little cons can mean a lifetime of struggle if Propostion 1A is passed.
I would vote no on Prop. 1A because it is a very bad time to be thinking of spending such great amounts of money. We are in a really big hole of debt, if this project does get started, we will never be able to finish it. It is stated that the train is not guranteed to be finished, that means it is absolutely not going to be finished. Right now we have no money to build this train, so we are going to borrow more money and be more in dept. Therefore, when we are about half way through the project, some problems will come up and will stall the construction, so with no money to be able to fix these problems, we won’t be able to finish the train. Even if the train does get finished and reduce CO2 emissions, it will destroy protected enviroments, so even though it polutes less, it would still harm the enviroment a great deal. So because this train helps in some ways, it harms in many other ways. It would be like taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back because now we would be in greater dept. I would vote no.
I really don’t believe that we are in the right moment to even be thinking of something like that. A train from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be nice but not at this time because of the financial crisis that is going on. We can’t be spending so much money on things like that. We should be spending it on things that can benefit us all and help with the crisis. We can’t afford to be spending anymore money on these kinds of projects right now. Maybe in the future if everything starts going well and we are stable then maybe we can make the train but for now I dont think it is a good idea at all. So I would vote no on Proposition 1A.
I asked my family if they knew what proposition 1A even was and of course they said “no i havent read my book on all the propositions” so from what i read about 1A yea it’d be a lovely idea but realistically california is not financially secure to deal with another costly project, we gotta figure out how we’re gonna get ourselves outts our $15billion debt before we take on any costly projects.
Bottom line i feel that we cant afford this at this time and plus the project would’nt be complete for what another 20yrs? I dunno i say No on proposition 1A. Maybe some other time.
I think that a train to San Francisco would be a wonderful commaditiy, but i also think that there are several things wrong with this picture. One, the state of California is already borrowing billions of dollars over our budget. how is it a good idea in any circumstance to put ourselves in any more of an extremely unstable economic situation than we are already in? Especially for a train, that seems like an idealistic commodity that the government and the PEOPLE of California can not afford.
Second, how often do people make weekly trips to San Francisco? If congress honestly thinks that building this train will make people not want to drive their cars, they are highly deluted. People are always going to choose their own cars over public transportation, just for the reason of convienence. I don’t believe that this fantasy would become an actual reality.
So, i don’t believe that i would vote for proposition 1A. i wish i was old enough to vote and allowed the opportunity to have my opinion included, but for now, i guess all we can do is spread awareness to other adults.
So I love San Francisco and I don’t like having to drive for a long time, but California doesn’t really NEED a train that goes from L.A. to San Francisco. Everyone that goes from L.A. to San Francisco either drives or flies already. We could be spending the billions of dollars it would take to build it on education and give money back to state colleges. Or even better, we can start to pay off the debt California is in. I think that debt should be more important than an unnecessary train. According to ballotpedia.org
There is no guarantee the project will ever be completed.
Building the rail system on the proposed route will have an adverse impact on 140-180 parks, wildlife refuges and protected open spaces.
It is a political boondoggle and a waste of money.
That alone should tell you that this train is not a wise way to use our money.
I would vote no on Prop 1A
I don’t think that Prop 1a is a good idea. A couple years ago, I would have defiantly voted yes for this proposition. It is environmentally friendly and provides transportation for people who don’t have any. I try to be very environmentally conscious; recycling, grocery shopping with a bag I brought from home etc. Also, by using this method of transportation, it saves a lot of potential CO2 from being emitted from cars into the atmosphere. Now I believe that it is a very bad idea. Our economy is plummeting quickly. Investing our money into this railway system is like being in debt with my mom. Say I’m 20 dollars in debt with her. Borrowing 100 more dollars won’t help my debt crisis. It will only take me longer to pay her back. And by the time I could pay her back, I would have had to borrow more money for movies or dinners. If we spend our money on a railway system it would take us longer to pay back our debt. By the time we got the money to pay our debtors, we would owe them more for other expenses that had added up. In addition, the main investment is going to the railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Honestly, how many people need to go to San Francisco every day? Not many. The road between San Francisco and here is less travelled than most. I don’t know anyone who goes out there enough to have to have a railway built. I’ve only ever been out there once! The money used for that railway could be spent towards more innovative travelling methods. For example, more trains through heavily populated cities, like a train going around LA. Maybe even clean air buses. There are many more alternative, more useful ways of using this proposed money; which we shouldn’t even use in the first place because we are in a deep financial crisis. That should be our main priority.
I think that proposition 1 A sounds like a good idea especially how gas prices are now and days. It is also a good way of transportation because its quick and safer. If it came down for me voting for prop 1 A i don’t think i would vote for it because the state is in depth right now and i think we should be spending that money on something better that can help our country or pay some of that depth we owe.
bhsjfvjsdfgyuf. I vote no on Prop 1A. We need to focus on the economy crisis that has struck our state rather than waste billions of dollars on a unnecessary project. ITS CALLED THE METRO PEOPLE! i agree with lizzie, who travels to san francisco everyday?! its not like people from los angeles are planning to commute to san francisco or vise versa. This is a horrible proposition. just even thinking about it fustrates me.
If i could vote on proposition 1A i would vote no because california is already in debt. Before we focus on transportation i think we need to focus on fixing the budget in california. I think after california isn’t in debt anymore and where able to give more funds to health care, education and other important programs then i will be all for proposition 1A. I dont think transportation should be even close to the top of are needs list at this moment.
“Building the rail system on the proposed route will have an adverse impact on 140-180 parks, wildlife refuges and protected open spaces” As if we don’t have enough problems with the conservation of wildlife, let’s throw a train right in the middle of them. Let’s spend billions of dollars! … That we do not have.
Granted, that may have sounded a bit biast… I’m sorry but I really don’t see why we need a high speed train in California. Think about it, we have the Metro and how many people use that everyday? I’ll tell you… not as many as we had hoped for.
The arguments for Prop 1A are adequate, but the arguments against Prop 1A seem to beat out the good.
Gas prices; Californians would save money
Wildlife refuges; gone
Traffic : reduced without raising taxes
BUT we have to pay the cost of the train, with money we don’t have… I’m sorry do we not have a budget crisis occuring as I type?
I doubt the train would be used very much unless it was for vacationing purposes… and at this point in time, with the cost of pretty much everything, I highly doubt anyone is going to be vacationing anytime soon.
The idea may sound pleasing but the bad weighs out the good.
No on Prop 1A
I would vote no on prop 1A because it will be a waste of money that we don’t have. it doesn’t benefit everyone also. I would understand and agree prop 1a if it benefited everyone in some way but it doesn’t .It will just be a waste of money for the state. They should spend the money that they are going to spend on building of the train on something more important. They should spend it on paying off other things that we need payed off. Or they should spend the money on something that is going to help everyone in someway . So i think that prop 1a is a bad idea and that we shouldn’t vote on it and spend the money on something better.
My family and I travel to San Francisco about once a year. When we go by car it takes us about 8 hours. But one year my dad couldn’t take days off so my mom, brother, sister and I traveled on the Greyhound. We would have gone on the train but it made way too many stops and it would take longer than the bus trip. On the Greyhound it took us about 23 hours. I absolutely hated it!! When I first looked at the proposition and saw that it was take 2 hours and 40 minutes, I automatically thought “Go for it!” Of course reality soon kicked in and I saw all the negative aspects of the proposition.
OK, so California is trying to find a solution for all the pollution in our state. The way I see it, unless you have money to spend, you shouldn’t go around looking for ways to spend money. Since we are in a debt, we should first find ways to make money, other than raising taxes. Sure this proposition would be very useful for people who constantly travel to and from LA and San Francisco. This is a very bad year to even put this proposition in the ballet. Especially since people are being so tight with their money, I would be surprised if this proposition even gets a third of the vote. My advice to Proposition 1A. Try again 10 years from now.
After reading information on Proposition 1a, i think Southern California does not need a train that goes to San Francisco. i think it would be a waste of borrow money, to build a train that goes that far. the demand of people that need to go travel across the state, isnt that high. i think we should use that money for something else. or just not borrow it if we really dont need it.
There is already public transprotaion that will takes you from northern Ca to southern CA. i that a friend that takes the train(s) from LA and takes a train(s) all the way to UC Davis, and back.
so i really dont think we should borrow all that money to build a train.
As far as proposition 1A goes, I feel that it is a good ideal that has the potential to be an adequate contribution to solving the economic solution. It would create a number of short and long jobs, (i.e. rail road construction, train driver), increase tourism in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, and greatly saturate the public transportation economy.
HOWEVER, even though I do feel that it is potentially the right solution, I do not feel it is our solution right now. Since the completion of the train would not be complete until 2030, I am afraid that the profits of the project would be felt too little, too late.
After reading prop 1A, I don’t think we need another train that goes from Los Angeles to San Francisco. We already have a train that runs to San Francisco from L.A. The state doesn’t have money to be making another line that already exists.
If the prop does pass, taxes will be even higher. The economy is already going under. Taxes will get higher; no one is going to be able to pay taxes. It does sound like a good idea to have it. The gas prices are too high, and the prices for airline tickets are ridiculous!
Overall I wouldn’t vote for prop 1A. California doesn’t have money for that right now. We should be focusing on other money problems now, like paying the government workers. Maybe later on when the economy is doing better, we could expand the railroads to have better transportation.
I think after reading the article on Prop 1A, I believe that I would vote no, because I think that trying to allocate 9.95 billion dollars for a high speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco with the financial situation being the way that it is now is another recipe for trouble. Considering thatalifornia is in a very serious financial situation, throwing away almost 10 billion dollars on a train is not the way to go. Even though I think that the state of California would eventually make that money back, I still beileve that spending such a vast amount of money at such a wrong time is the worst thing that we as a state can do.
After I read prop 1a i laughed because to do this would be ridiculous 10 billion dollars for California to make a train. If we already have trains going through L.A. and San Francisco. We need to payback all our loans that we owe thats why we shouldn’t do this.
Proposition IA has good ideas but is their really a need for that train. The train cost way too much money and that money is just going to be sitting there because its not going t be ready until 2030. The United States is going through a financial crisis and I am pretty sure this will not help the cause. California as well has a financial crisis because this year California just made it s budget and that was because it borrowed more money. The government should be prioritizing and i think the train should be one of the lowest priority if not the lowest one. Yes it would be cool to be in San Francisco in less than 3 hours but where is the thrill of looking at the outdoors when your traveling through an automobile and if you want to get to San Francisco fast then there is always planes. No i would not vote for it for two reasons, one because i am no old enough yet. And two because that is just an act that will waste time, money and create a problem between the people which the state nor the federal government need at this point of time.
Proposition 1A is a good thing for all the community. There are some things I really don’t like about this and there are some things that I do. Some examples of the things I don’t like about Proposition 1A is the money part. That is because as we all know that the state of California has some what of a money debt, because this year there barely made there budge, and in my opinion they were lucky, and if they were to make this happen it would come to a total of 40 billion dollars. I am not saying Proposition 1A is a bad idea but we should thinking about it a little more, because it’s something we don’t need to be worrying because we have bigger problems. For example the U.S economy is not doing real good. So we should worry about fixing that before spending are time and money on something we don’t need at the moment. Some of the things I do like about Proposition 1A are that it would be way faster transportation form Los Angeles to San Francisco. If they were to build this train it would take 2 hours and 40 minutes to get there either from LA to SF or from SF to LA. It would also be I good idea for the people that want to work in San Francisco and live in LA or the other way around. If I was old enough I wouldn’t vote for it because there’s bigger things we should be worrying about, but if the US economy and California’s budget was doing fine proposition 1A would have my vote.
No, I would not vote for this. Only because we won’t have the money to be ale to pay back the money we borrowed from our American citizens. If I were to take money and do something risky it should be for something that will benefit america fast and would be of significance for the future. for example( Taking a few billion dollars to build and look into more independent energy sources.) I do however, believe that Proposition is a good ides, but without the immediate financial strength that good idea will turn into a nightmare. The train tickets will turn into costly prices ( This is just some money will be made up) and they will cost just as much as or little to no difference than a plane ticket.
Noooo I will vote no to 1A is a lot a money that we dont have it in this moment. We are in a crisis and basicactly we have to focus on the economy right now. Doing that right now it would be a waist of time and more than nothing money. Just thinking about this it makes me mad because they have to think about how to get the country out of this they are thinking about this simple stuff
I do not think prop 1A should pass, we do not have the money to suffice this project. Before we decide on taking on more money-spending projects, we should earn back the money we need to simply keep California’s economy well active. This plan shoulod not be proposed until we have the sufficient funds to execute it.
this will affect my life by increasing the already-raising state taxes, which I would have to pay. it would financially hurt myself and my family because we would be paying for the construction and usage of a public service that we will not even be using.
So Proposition 1A sounds like a scam. Well that’s not exactly true.
Proposition 1A is a proposal to build a fast train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, cutting into wildlife reserves and protected area. On a plan it takes like a 1 hour not including all the hassle of the airport and driving is 7 hours. So technically this high-speed train would be faster but with the budget crisis I do not see how it is practical. 9.95 billion dollars to build a train that might be done in 2030…. Crazy. I would not vote for Prop. 1A it just doesn’t make sense.
I dont not agree wit prop 1A, in my opinion we should not be borrowing more money when this country is already in debt. Why are we gonna put more gas in a fire when we are trying to put the fire out. This is a waste of resources and money. We cant make effort for the future when the present time is not even stable and we dont know the outcome off the problem that we have at the present time.
At first I thought Proposition 1A was a good idea, but that was untill I read the argueements against it. This train would really benifit alot of people. Some people would have to take a 7 hour drive to San Fransisco, or an 1 hour plane ride not including the time sent to get ready for the trip and airport check in. I like the fact that it will eliminate the amount of CO2 in our air. Although the amount time it take to complete this projuct takes way to long, and the cost is way to much for the way economy is going right now. That 9.95 billion dollars can be sent on better things such as replacing education cuts. I do not like how it would cut into the wildlife. We can just expand the transportation we have now and once the economy is better we can think about having this project. For now this propostion is a bad idea and the money can be spent on better things. I would not vote for this propostion.
If i could vote on prop 1A I would definitely NOT vote for it. Its not only adding to our a states ever increasing deficit but it messes up so many parks and recreational areas. i could possibly understand if it just expanded the railroads like stated on the 1A reference site but starting from scratch is just a complete waste of time and resources. I think that the fact that this project has been postponed this many times is a sign that it should just be put off indefinitely when the state is not in a $3,107,023,275 debt.(http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac/)
I dont not agree with prop 1A, in my opinion we should not be borrowing more money when this country is already in debt. Why are we gonna put more gas in a fire when we are trying to put the fire out. This is a waste of resources and money. We cant make effort for the future when the present time is not even stable. We dont know the outcome of the problem that we have at the present time. So i believe that should spend the money we have right now one our economic problems and then build train tracks we dont need.
Mr puther, i accidently posted the uneditied version of my blog under the name of Martin Rodriguez sorry for the inconvienience.
Proposition 1A is a good thing for all the community. There are some things I really don’t like about this and there are some things that I do. Some examples of the things I don’t like about Proposition 1A is the money part. That is because as we all know that the state of California has some what of a money debt, because this year there barely made there budge, and in my opinion they were lucky, and if they were to make this happen it would come to a total of 40 billion dollars. I am not saying Proposition 1A is a bad idea but we should thinking about it a little more, because it’s something we don’t need to be worrying because we have bigger problems. For example the U.S economy is not doing real good. So we should worry about fixing that before spending are time and money on something we don’t need at the moment. Some of the things I do like about Proposition 1A are that it would be way faster transportation form Los Angeles to San Francisco. If they were to build this train it would take 2 hours and 40 minutes to get there either from LA to SF or from SF to LA. It would also be I good idea for the people that want to work in San Francisco and live in LA or the other way around. If I was old enough I wouldn’t vote for it because there’s bigger things we should be worrying about, but if the US economy and California’s budget was doing fine proposition 1A would have my vote.
I believe that proposition 1A is a good thing but its also a bad thing. The reason why its a good thing is because it eliminates the traffic and all the stress of driving for six hours. Its also good because famailes will see each other more and be more united because it takes less time to get there. The reason why I think its a bad thing is because the united states is in debt and its a major crisis. I believe before we srtart spending mass amount of money we need to solve or debt problem. NO
At the moment I don’t think that we should build a train from LA to San Francisco due to the current budget crisis. Also if its going to be complete in 2030 I think that is way to much time to compete a project. If it were to pass and they did start to build it, I think it would be a good idea because it would get rid of a lot of pollution from all the cars going back and forward. Also i don’t know by then if there is going to be a invention that is made that reduces the pollution all together. If people did take the train to San Francisco, they wouldn’t even have a car when they got there unless they rented one. Over all I don’t think it will be a good idea due to all the new things that are coming out.
So proposition 1a eh?
There isn’t too much to say.
It is a good idea. Bad timing.
It would save gas, money, would be more environmentally friendly, but we just cannot afford it.
I don’t understand why would they even bring up this proposition at THIS moment. CA is in bad shape with debt and just because they put off to deal with for next year doesnt mean they can make the debt bigger. Plus it should be completed in 2030. That is way too of a long time to wait. We might have flying cars buy then. My point is that we do not need to worry about building ANYTHING right now because we dont know what is going to happen in 20 some years and why would we build something new when everything we have already is falling apart? We cannot afford it!!!
Again if it i was a better timing i might have voted yes on prop 1a as of right now..
absolutely not.
There is no way that i would vote for Proposition 1A. It is not that the proposition is a bad one, but I just don’t think that we need something this expensive at the moment. Sure the gas prices are high, but a 10 billion dollar high speed train will not help too much. Besides it won’t even be completed until 2030. It is just too expensive (even if it is in bonds) and it will take too long to complete. There is just no way that I can see myself voting for this unnecessary proposition.
Proposition 1A is asking to approve about $10 billion dollars in bonds. If it is approved we would temporarily gain money, which would be spent on the $40 billion train. That is only a fourth of what the train costs, and it needs a billion dollars a year for maintenance. After we have spent even more money on a train that might not even be finished and that would put us in even further debt, the bonds we will approve will have matured. The combination of the cashed in bonds and the incomplete train being constructed would cripple our economy even further than it is now. I don’t think approving the bonds would help us in any way, and the same goes for the train. We would only be digging a deeper hole. Even if the train was a huge success, do you really think it will be enough to pay off our debt and the bonds?
Prop 1A would I vote for it. Well I see it like this we are already in a debt, why add even more money to it. I would vote yes if we were not in a monetary crisis. Yes, because not only will it be convenient to people that travel back and forth from N. Cali to S. Cali but it also would help reduce air pollution. Also it would bring many jobs to CA. But since we are in an economic crisis and cannot afford to add even more to our debt I would have to vote no. On top of that we would not have this train until like 30 years from now so at this point it would not really matter. Not only will the cost to build this train be millions but the maintenance costs will be a lot of money also. How much would we end up paying for a ticket to rain this fast speed train? It would probably be a lot more money than airfare.
i believe that proposition 1a is a waste of time. Especially now when California is in great need of financial aid. The train would cost about $40 billion to build. i really don’t feel that we should risk the little or no money we ave to build this false or uncertain hope. I don’t feel that borrowing money from people would help either. Its like using a state credit card. You’ll be fine for now but sooner or later you’re going to have to pay all that money back and if the train is not successful you just added $40 billion dollars plus $1 billion per year for maintenance. It is a giant risk that i don’t believe we should take. if i were to vote i would vote no on proposition 1a.
Well I think it’s a waste of money just to make a train lines. We should be using that money for schools, for the use to help out the homeless, and for other issues that we have. We could use that money for other things now instead of having it used to build something that will be used 20 years from now. I wouldn’t vote for it because its makes no sense to throw money on projects that will be complete in 20 yrs. If you actually think about it how many people would go to San Francisco from Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes. We could go in a car and enjoy the beauty of
I would vote no on this proposition because I believe it is a huge waste of the taxpayers money. That money could be used for more useful projects. With our economy in crisis, we need to be smart with where we put our money. Instead of making rail line that money could be used to fix the free way problem instead. That would benefit many more Americans, who have problems getting to work. I think that putting that 9.95 billion dollars towards the free way problem, or towards education would benefit our state way more. This train is more a luxury than a necessity. I’m sure it would make traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles a lot easier, but come on, how man Californians would really benefit from that train? Think about it percentage-wise I’m sure it is very miniscule. I think Californians need more help getting from lets say “Pomona to West Covina” than they do traveling over 300 miles. People don’t have the money to vacation, and it seems more of a vacation type of trip than anything else.
I Think I would have to say no to Proposition 1a. We are already in a debt crisis, so we shouldn’t be spending much anyways. Especially since the economy is going crazy right now we should be cautious and thoughtful of where our money is going to. If we weren’t in such a huge debt and the banking crisis didn’t happen I would be happy to vote yes for it but unfortunately that’s not the situation. It would take too long for us to gain profit from the train, and right now if we are going to invest into building something, that something should be cheap and able to make profit fast because we can’t afford to wait around, time is money after all.
CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY!!!! America is in a rescission right now and cannot afford to use 19.4 billion of the little money we do have to support Prop 1A. Yes the idea is a great one because it can reduce the chaos on the roads, minimize air pollution, and bring more job opportunities. Prop 1A may possibly bring pollution down, but that it. If it is passed it will accentually cause California to lose money because the cost of the trains itself is about 4 million dollars maybe even more, and the yearly maintenance of the train will eventually add up!
So to answer the question would I vote for Proposition 1A, the answer is “NO”. “Why” I would not vote for 1A is because California cannot afford to lose money right now. Prop 1A in no way would bring profit because of the fact that it will take about 30 years to pay off (2039), that just is an idiotic move. To support this proposition is like to elect president Bush for another term; complete an utter disaster.
The points made by the article about proposition 1A are all valid and I am well aware of the financial crisis effecting Americans world wide however I feel commencing the construction of a train that drives from Los Angeles (LA) to San Francisco (SF) is a beneficial endeavor. As the price of gas goes up so does the demand for public transportation, consentient of prop 1A is doing just that by giving the public what they want.
The train may seem to be a burden to the economy right now but the benefits of the operation outweigh the initial $647 million per year sacrifice. The first way the high-speed passenger train project helps the economy is by providing jobs to the thousands of construction out of work due to the halt in constriction.
The second benefit is in the area of gas, proposals like proposition 1A alleviate some of the dependency we Americans have on foreign fuel by providing other means of transportation. The train can also spur the economy by attracting tourrist to come in spend money in not only the large cities like LA and SF but surrounding ones as well.
The third benefit is that the train provides both construction jobs during the train is being built and maintenance jobs for after the train is built. Based on the data given, i am confident to say that i support prop 1A because of the benefits it gives to Americans.
I would NOT vote for Prop 1A because its not really necessary for us to have a train that goes from San Fransisco to LA. We have much larger issues at hand here, and a train should not be one of our big worries. We could use the billions of dollars they want to spend on a train on more important things, such as education. College funding is ridiculously low, and they keep cutting the budget, but they want to spend billions on a train? California needs to get its priorities straight.
Personaly I would enjoy seeing a super speed train because of mostly the speed and proof of technology advances of it but i would have to vote no on it mainly for the fact that california can’t afford it at this time and even if we could it isnt a for sure that it will ever be completed. the pros of it are very convincing, it would be fun to have such a quick and safe form of transportation but it doesnt seem cost effective and it doesnt seem like it would cut back on very much gas because of the fact that i dont think it would be all that popular if it only goes an small ammount of places.
Like most of you, I will have a difficult time voting yes on this proposition, because of our current economic crisis. With the federal bailout of Wall Street and now California potentially asking the federal government to bail them out, I am not comfortable pack on the debt.
However, we do need projects like this to create jobs and expand the economy. Therefore, there may be a project out there that I would vote for even if we have to borrow to build it.
Eventough the state is really trying to make the comunity better like keeping the streets clean and taking pollution to a lower level it is a pretty bad time to borrow money. We are already in so much dept that people are losing their things like houses, cars, businesses, etc.
My votewill go towards the negative side of this proposition but if the state decides to so borrow money for the better being of the state i will not go to much against it.
Proposition A seems to be a good prop to me. It makes since and seems like it will get what California need done. Seeing how populative California is i think we can accomplish this deal, just look how much money we bring in compared to any other state! Though i can see why everyone would just turn this down, and we don’t need to be in more of a depth than we are now, so most likely the best thing to do is to just wait for more opportunities to show to us, that will give us a sure-fire way to fix our economy
I had already done this blog before, and I said that I support the ideas behind Prop 1A, but do not think I would vote for it because of the current economic crisis.
Well, voting already happened, Prop 1A already passed, so in rewriting my blog I would rather focus on it how it is currently. Since Prop 1A already passed, we may as well look at the positive outcomes. This train will provide an alternative to many people who travel this distance for business reasons. It will also create many jobs, which is something that we should look forward to. It will help the environment and save people time and money. It could help ease traffic. In the end, the train will have been a great investment. Plus, the money is in bonds, so it’s not like they will have to be paid back right now.
No, I wouldn’t vote for Prop. 1A, because as nice as a train from San Francisco to LA sounds, I think that California should spend our money on something more important, like paying off our debts. Hmmm…thats an idea to think about; stop borrowing money for something we don’t necessarily need and start getting out of the red.
Yeah, this train would save people money because now they don’t have to fly to San Francisco and it would save time instead of driving, but really, we don’t need a train. People in Southern California don’t ride trains like people do back east like in Chicago or New York, and people probably wouldn’t want to sit on a train for almost 3 hours.
But, this prop. would cost us normal people $2,000 over about a 30 year period. If they want to raise our taxes, they better be doing something better than building a train to take people back and forth from San Francisco to LA. Like I said earlier, it sounds nice, but I wouldn’t be voting yes on this prop.
I have a feeling that a lot of people are probably going to disagree with me, but I would have to say that I would vote yes. I am absolutely for any kind of long distance public transportation.
I say this because I use public transportation to get myself from the LA County to the San Fernando Valley. Often. Typically, it takes me two buses and two trains to get there. Altogether, it takes about five hours to cross a 58 mile distance which if driven directly by car instead, would only take an hour. An hour is my waiting time at the train station in Pasadena. If we increased public transportation, the distance from LA to San Francisco specifically, it would be a lot faster to reach the family and friends I do have up there, it would open up more jobs for people, and it would help the environment as well. Additionally, I probably wouldn’t be spending as much on commuting.
Imagine the opportunities that would be opened by having this train. College students could live at home in LA and still apply to colleges in NorCal and commute. Especially since it would be cheaper than flying out back and forth.
We rely on our cars too much to get from Point A to Point B. I think California needs to broaden its horizons, get a new perspective on things, and try something new.
So yeah. I’d vote for it.
I would have to say no to proposition 1A. The oppostions on wiki are greater then the positive side of this. I mean it’s a great idea, but we’re always in debt enough, and can’t afford another 30 years of debt. Money will be brought in by mass use, but how much would this help our debt problem/raise? 19.4billion to pay off in 30years just to build it. along with another 1billion yearly to maintain it.
Also we’d be ruining hundreds of parks and wildlife reserves. I also agree with wiki, to save money but make things more efficiant we could just improve what public transportation we already have. This will save money, improve public transportation and more people would use it.
I say no to proposition 1A.
For propistion 1a, it’s kind of a tough decision because theres two sides of this propisition you can go for.
Okay so one side you can go for is to vote yes ofcourse. Well because having transportation that helps people with long distance can help us and the environment in way. Using the train can avoid the traffic that we all love to hate so we can get to our destination faster. And since we all depend on cars way to much, because were lazy, too many cars causes air pollutions unless you have a hybrid and what not then that’s another story.
And the other side to think of proposition 1a is to vote no because we all know that they should use the money for something more useful to us and more effective. For instance the whole money issue we are having to deal with right now. And if we keep using money for other things and not trying to pay off our debt it will never be solved and would have to raise money prices for citizens and it will cost a whole other problem for families not being able to afford the things they need. And it would be a mess in the future.
So to this proposition i’m kind of iffy with my decision because im kind of see both points of views, but im not really liking this whole money issue so i think no, so that they can at least try to start paying off the debt and wait for helpful trains after we can avoid money problems.
I’ve been on a train once in my life. If you count subways, you can bump that number up to about … five – but that was in New York. I used the train to get from California to Ohio and that was about a three day trip. My dad was especially excited for me and my sisters to travel by train because he never has. The point is – we commuters don’t use trains here on the West coast. They have never been a popular mode of transportation. Although they are environmentally friendly AND would save us some traffic and gas, California has never been too big on trains.
I’m going to have to agree with Kameha on this one. As nice as a train would be, we just don’t have that kind of money. We’re already swimming in debt and this train isn’t even guarenteed! Even if High-Speed Rail Authority came through, we wouldn’t see this train until 2030. [Think of it in terms of age -- the class of '09 will be reaching their forties!] Even if the money was spread out between all high-speed rail corridors, I don’t think it will be put to good use. The fact that we’d be ruining wildlife preserves and parks [which might loose their maintenance because of budget cuts] doesn’t help.
Looking at the proposition as a whole – possible losses and gains – it just doesn’t seem worth it. I would vote no on Proposition 1A.
there is always two sides in a argument. this proposition has its benifits but also its flaws. in this case supposly it is going to reduce 12 billion of CO2. But in the Con side there is no guarantee that the project would ever be done. that can be a problem. But in the end if things even if we had faith in the promise of this plan we still have china or south america poluting the enviornment. So really it betters the situation of global warming but it doesn’t give a exact solution.
Therefore i wouldn’t vote for this proposition because it really doesn’t give a solution to the problen of global warming.
I think Proposition 1A is a good idea because there are many people who go out there for business and come back home in one day. It would save the hassle with gas and airline tickets. But, I would vote no on Proposition 1A. It is not the time to start a project like this with our economy barely hanging on and not to mention the debt that we are in. We would pay the money and then we wouldn’t reap the rewards far off in 2030 not only that but there is no guarantee finish. We are already cutting our spending, I would rather see the education system and health care receive this money than the transit.
I don’t have a problem with the transit system from LA to San Fran it would actually save money and time for those who commute from San Fran to LA. I know from experiencing the bullet train in Japan that it saved us money and took us only 2 hours to get from Tokyo to Kyoto. Other wise we would have to spend more money on airline tickets which cost more over there because the value of the dollar went down. So in the future when we balanced the economy then we can start talking about the transit because it would be helpful to get us off being dependable on foreign oil. I think that would be our next step after the economy, becoming more independent on resources like oil.
No, there is no reason why I would vote for such a railroad to be built. Even if the railroad where to remove 12 billion pounds of CO2, This does not ensure that all the other cars in Southern and Central California will still cause an equal amount of pollution if not more. Secondly, if a person needs to go to San Francisco to work, then they should be living there. I do not know of many people who have to go from Anaheim to San Francisco on a daily or weekly basis. Plus, it appears that this bill has been attempted many times before. What proof is there that this time will be any different. Also, wouldn’t it be a little bit cheaper, if currently existing railroads were just expanded so that they would reach San Francisco? This way the railroad would not need to be started from scratch, and this in turn would probably be a lot cheaper than building a whole new railroad.
I’ve only been on a train once and its not that great.
I would not vote for Prop 1A.
I think its ridiculous to spend such a huge amount of money on a train system. California is in a pool of debt. Why drown into more?
If California really wanted to spend such an insane amount of money, they should be using it for education or bettering communities. There are a lot of cities that need to be fixed and cleaned. There are schools falling apart. We need to spend it on things that actually matter, not a train. Its not that useful.
Plane tickets dont cost much. And besides, people who travel from LA to San Fran are usually workers and business people. Their company would pay for the ticket. Why would they need to worry about getting to their destination?
I also agree with Ian King. It would probably be A LOT cheaper if we built the train on existing roads. A whole new railroad is too expensive.
It is also to time consuming to build the train. Imagine how long it would take to build something that goes from LA to San Fran.
Death to Prop 1B
Prop 1A is a good idea and if we had the excess money I would vote for it. But seeing
that we are already 15 billion dollars in debt we don’t have the money, so I would not vote
for Prop. 1A. Even though Prop 1A would cause less traffic, less money for commuters to spend on gas, and possibly less pollution, it would cause hardship in our economy. Here in southern California we already have a well working train system, such as the metrolink, that works perfectly fine in my view. So commuters can already fine ways of using trains or carpooling with others to make things easier on them with out the state having to dish out the 19 billion dollars.
Proposition 1a, in my opinion, seems like a good idea but not the right timing. We have a problems in the economy as it and we shouldnt add on more than what can we handle. Also the time to complete this project make its seem so unrealist. Then using parks and wildlife refuges for the land that would be use for this, it would cause more harm than help. I dont want to put this idea completely out but for the time being I said say no. With that said I say no on proposition 1A.
~J.P.
It sounds like a great idea at first, but thinking about it more, right now is not a good time for this.
Where are we going to get 647 million dollars for the next few years? All that’s on the news right now is how we’re practically in a new Depression.
yes, better transportation is exactly what California needs. A train would be great, but why so much money? Right now, I’m more worried about my education than how i’m getting to San Francisco.
Meanwhile, the airlines are always giving pretty good deals from LA San Francisco.
So while Prop 1A can be good for some people by saving gas and time(but, really, how much do people go from LA to SF? is it really enough to make a train?), it’s bad for the state. We just can’t afford it.
I think we can wait a few years for this one.
I think that prop 1a is has several advantages. like how los angeles wouldnt be as dependent on foreign oil as it is today and thus gas prices would be much lower. also, it would reduce alot of pollution.
On the other hand, the plans for the route pass through protected wildlife areas, it is very expensive, and it will take too much time.
I would not vote for prop 1a because i think that that money can be better spent, especially if the high speed train isnt going to be in use until 2030. i also believe that while it will reduce gas prices it will be is such a long time from now that gas will have already been lowered significantly.
This prob 1a is a brain scratcher it has a good side and bad side to it. Sure it would be nice to travel to the Golden gate bridge in under 2 hrs and who wouldn’t love to come to Hollywood every now and then, but the issue today is our economic status is in turmoil at then moment. We simply cannot afford to spend so much money on a train.Ballot pedia org states that Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority with that in mind we can tell that this train could save us in many ways and help the environment but at the same time it will taking money from our pockets, which is money that we don’t really have enough of right now.
i would not vote for this prop1a to much money and at this age im not supposed to worry about money that mnuch and if seeing this already makes my brain hurt then there is a definite problem with prop1a
I vote No on proposition 1A!
I vote no because it doesn’t make any sence to me why we would put ourselves in more debt than we already are!! We have already a 15 billion debt we can’t just add 647 million dollars more! We should be paying as much of it off as possible.
From my point of view there is nothing wrong with the trains we use today, such as the metrolink. I used to go on the metrolink all the time. It basically does the same thing as prob 1A is telling us about. It is helping people save money on gas, it gets people from point A and point B. So it’s not as fast but then there’s always planning ahead, and if you know you need to be some where by this time, obviouly you need to leave sooner.Instead of trying to make something new, we should try and make the old things more high tech. Make some arangements to the metrolink to try and fit prob. 1A, then it wouldn’t be so expensive.
I vote NO on proposition 1A!
First of all, almost $10 billion dollars is a lot of money to spend that we do not have. In my opinion, we should take the money that was going to be spent on the train, and put that money back into the school budget. The budget cuts were taken from the wrong place, and our generation, and the ones following, are having a hard time paying for school. We should put that money back into the schools for new technology, a better learning environment, scholarships, grants, financial aid, etc.
Second of all, where are we going to get that money from? We are already in dept, and the financial crisis has hit many families. I do understand that they are trying help with pollution and save commuters time and money. But with the money crisis that we are in right now, I personally do not think that building this train is the best idea for now.
At first when I read what proposition 1A was about I immediately thought this could be a good thing for society with gas prices going off the roof. It has its good sides, it makes traveling much faster, reduces foreign oil and reduces air pollution. Which I agree will have good impact in both society and the environment. But then again as we start progressing and finding new projects we start adding more money to the debt list. We’re in a financial crisis as it is and making a new way for transportation is not the way of solving our problem with money issues. I’m not saying its a bad idea but i think we should put the new train project to the side for now until we find a way out of this whole financial crisis that America is going through.
So would I vote for proposition 1A? If this was a few years from now I would. But for now I definitely wouldn’t because I believe that even if this project does become successful how are we going to pay $19.4 Billion and on top of that the billions of dollars that CA already owes. Which indeed will hurt the economy even more.
If i had to vote to vote, i would vote no on proposition 1A. In the first place, we don’t have that money to spend. the transportation would be a good investment, but not at this time. Firstly because of the resent metro incident and secondly, it wouldn’t be done till 2030. any investment in that project would be non beneficiary to the current financial crisis.
I think proposition 1 is idiotic. I think so because we are way in debt right now and every body has had it with the money crisis, like they’re already complaining to the max, you know. Why would the High Speed Rail Authority even suggest this proposition? What we need less of is getting in to more debt. They should deny this proposition and replace it with another important proposition like how to recover funds for education. I would not vote for proposition 1 because it’s too expensive and we certainly don’t have money in our budget for this project. I tried to find if people actually went too work every day from around here like San Bernardino to San Francisco, but I couldn’t find any answers. Then I searched how long it will take to drive from L.A to San Francisco and it said it would take about 6 hours. Ok now I tried to put it all in to real life and figured out that its not possible because to go and come back is 12 hours and people with full time jobs work 8 hours so it cant be. I think the people who do actually have a job like that probably have a working schedule and lots of vacations. That seemed logical to me because I think only people who work for cooperations would live from that far of a distance. I Like Ian’s idea of starting from existing rail lines and continuing from there, so then it would be cheaper and easier, and have the same ending results as well as being completed a little bit faster.
A lot of people might think Proposition 1A is unnessary because they have their own trasnportation. But for the people who dont have a car ( like me). Proposition 1A would be a crazy good idea. However it is probably not the right time to bring up such proposition. First of all the econemy crisis are a major problem. we are already in a huge debt. It is hard to spend another billions dollars on trains. Second they estimate that the train system might be completed in 2030. thats 22 years from now. It is really a long time for this proposition to start making some profit and its purpose.
So, i would say no for now(if i can vote), but if our econemy recovers tomorrow dramatically, then everything changes.
After reading about how proposition 1A would lower CO2 emissions, reduce traffic, and reduce our reliance on foreign oil I thought that this new proposition would be a really good for California but than I went on to read the opposition to it and thats when I decided this was a pretty bad idea.
The reasons why this is a bad idea is because they are planning on spending billions of dollars to build this new high speed train but at the moment we do not have the money to do that and if we did this would be a bad way to spend our money. But the main reason why I think that this is a bad idea is because with the construction of this train it means that wildlife sanctuary’s and parks will be severely impacted by this.
I vote NOOO on Prop 1A.
I don’t really think Prop 1A is a great idea at this time. As everyone knows by now, the US is greatly in debt. Spending even more money on a railroad from LA to San Francisco is ridiculous, at this rate we are NEVER going to pay off that debt. Maybe later it would be a good idea, but it depends on the impact it’s going to have on the environment. We have to think of what it would take to build it, as in are they going to declare eminent domain? How will it affect the surrounding communities? If they don’t destroy any homes or anything to build it, then yes i would votes yes, but not at this time.
Personally as good as this idea sounds on paper I dont think we would really benefit from it. Why would we keep borrowing money if we are already in a deep debt. To my understanding the money was already borrowed and this is what they came up with as a use for it. I guess it would help people to not spend so much on gas but then again only certain people would benefit fromt his because its only from southern california to san francisco. Im not sure if it makes any extra pit stops but if it doesnt it would only help people that live in the cities where the train stops. I think we could put the money to better use by paying for student programs or just paying off this debt that seems to not be going anywhere. I would vote no on proposition 1a, its not the brightest idea to borrow money for things that would only be beneficial for part of the state of California especially because the debt gets bigger for EVERYONE in california and not everyone is using this train.
My first reaction to proposition 1A was,” What are these people insane!” even after I read the positive things about prop. 1A I still thought these people were crazy. How could anyone come up with an idea like this? We are already deep in debt as it is and these people are using our debt like a gigantic credit card.
Now, the whole idea of a credit card is to borrow money from a company and pay it back later. When people have credit cards they use them to spend money. The most normal thing is to spend your money on things that you need, but then come along the compulsive buyers who spend, spend, and spend on things that they don’t need at all. To me, the people that came up with the idea of a high speed train are what I call compulsive buyers, but people like me who have, what I call, common sense know that this idea is totally wacko!
Now, looking at the entire plan I just don’t like the idea of destroying wildlife parks, reserves, and refuges for a project that isn’t even guaranteed to be finished and even if it is guaranteed it won’t be finished until 2030, who knows if we’ll even be alive by then. Plus this train is supposed to help the earth by reducing global warming, but it will only reduce it in a certain area the rest will be just as polluted as ever; and we have to be more concerned about saving our species from extinction, but the way the plan for Prop. 1A is turning out it will destroy from 140 to 180 parks, reserves, and refuges that are helping this cause. So I say, vote no on proposition 1A because it has no purpose, besides that of consuming, and it won’t be helping our environment it will actually be destroying it!
I think that Proposition 1A is a good idea for transportation. It will be quicker for people to travel around, which can mean people can be looking for jobs from one city to another without having to worry about time if they can organize their schedule. Except, even though it is a very good idea, it is being brought up at a very bad time.
I would vote no, because we still have money problems and California is in debt. Why would they want to drag us into even more debt than we can really pay. Our economy will just fall apart if this passes. It also disrupts wild animals and parks, which is a loss of lives and loss of green environment. If they can fix our economy I would agree, but at this time, its a no.
i think the idea or outcome of the train is a good idea like the decreasing of pollution, saving money from high gas prices when you travel, reduces California’s dependancy on foreign oil, and would reduce traffic on the roads but what i don’t agree with is the state lending out $9.95 billion dollars.
I would vote no because they picked a bad time to barrow money from the state. Learning from our last blog that the U.S. is in bad financial shape the state shouldn’t lend out large amounts of money and 30 years is a long time to be paid back even with interest.
I would absolutley vote no on Prop. 1A. California and the whole fresking country are already so far in debt and in economic crisis, this would just add to the problems that this state in particular has. We spemd more money and have higher taxes than most states and we are in the worst shape in a long time. There is no praticle need for the train. Family and friends can wait for me to drive to them.
As for students comuting to school, oh welll live there or drive, because if you want to go to school up in Northern California and you vote yes on this, then what do you think is goin to happen to your school costs. How much do you imagine you will be paying to fund this billion dollar proposition. And the estimated time for completion is in 2030 whick is a good two decades away.
California need not broaden its horizons. California needs to focus on the present econmic disaster that is good on today! California and the U.S. should stop looking to the future and should focus on whjat is haapening here and now, because if we dont fix the current problems then there may not be much of a future to look foward to.
WAKE UP CALIFORNIA!!!!
I’m undecided on prop 1A.
Just the thought of having a train that could take me from LA to San Francisco in less than 3 hours is just amazing and it would do the world a favor by not emitting as much CO2 gases. The train would also help people save more money and is going to be really handy when it comes to traveling.
On the other hand, because there is no guarantee that the project will ever be finished. I don’t think it would be a good idea to spend money on something that isn’t for sure. If the project was never going to be finished, that would be a HUGE waste of money that could’ve been used for paying off someone California’s debt.
I would vote no on Proposition 1A. California is spending money they don’t have. If someone is going to pass a bill about anything dealing with transportation, it better be on highway improvements because our infrastructure is falling apart. Recently there was a terrible train crash in Chatsworth. After that happened wouldn’t you assume people would fear going on trains? If California wasn’t in debt this would be a reasonable idea, but since we are we need to conserve as much money as we can.
I would vote no on proposition 1A. We do not need a railroad that goes from the top to the bottom of the state, that is what airplanes are for. Our state is already deep in debt and don’t need to spend 9 billion dollars on a project like that. Especially when the economy is messed up so badly.
If we are to use a lot of money it should be used on stimulating the economy and on our schools. The money could also be used for paying off our debt. California doesn’t need to be spending extra right now.
Having a train connecting California could also mess up the airline companies. If the train took over inner state transportation than the Airline companies would lose money and that could be very bad.
From what I read about Proposition 1A it seems like a stupid idea. First of all $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to get Proposition 1A started (because it always goes over the amount they say it will cost). Do not get me wrong Proposition 1A would have been a good idea way back in the day when California was not in this hole of which we are trying to dig our selves out of. Proposition 1A would have been good when the United States economy was good or better then it is right now. But since California’s economy is not strong right now, as well as the United States it kind of seems to be a dumb idea to spend $9.95 billion on a train that would not get used that often.
I do not thing the train will get used that often mainly because of the recent train crash not to long ago. I would think people would be afraid to ride a train after that, since people usually get scared about things like that easily. However I do think that Proposition 1A is a good idea IF it came about back when California, and the United States was not in such a big hole right now. So for wether I would vote on Proposition 1A or not my answer is no; mainly because it is just not the right time to have this on the ballet right now.
I am not sure if I would vote for Proposition 1A. I would vote yes for the reason that I use public transportation often to go to and from school. Other people that also take the bus would understand that it is difficult to always rely on the bus. Some bus drivers are always tardy and cause you to be late. It is also annoying to have to be waiting at the bus stop because of the weather. During the summer it is really hot and during the winter it is really cold. Another factor, is that it is time consuming. For example just to get from Baldwin Park to Pomona, it takes around an hour when on the freeway it takes less than 15 minutes. That is if you get lucky and your buses are there on time.
On the other hand I would not vote for the proposition 1A for the reason that I don’t think it is the best time to do it. We don’t need another reason to be in debt. If the proposition would actually make it through it would only get us in a deeper hole. With the financial crisis that is slowly taking over the country, there are much better reasons to spend our money on.
I don’t know if I would vote for Proposition 1A. I would want to because I think that public transportation needs a lot of improvement but, then I wouldn’t because I don’t think this is the best time to use billions of dollars on a high speed passenger train.
When I had just glimpsed at the article and my eyes “Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds” without ANY hesitation my thought was “hell no”. No, period, end of freaking story. I don’t give a darn of how much money it will save commuters and expand transportation options. First of all, where in the freaking world would the money come from?! Please, I would like to know. Would we print out some money or something? Sadly, money does not grow on trees. It’s an absurd waste of money. Period. We already have so much transportation crap anyway so why not expand it instead of starting from scratch?! With all that said, I believe my answer is quite clear.
This is really hard to decide. I think if it gets passed it can be a really great thing for people who commute that far, it also might encourage people to travel more to the North. I think me and my friends might just go because it’s there and not as bad as driving 6 hours. Not only that but it can help the enviorment if alot of people use it.
On the other hand, California is already in a major crisis with the budget. Investing that much money into a train might not be the greatest of ideas right now. The money can go back to schools or something more important.
In the end I think I would probably vote No on it. There are more urgent matters at hand than the commute from the south to the north. If there is a way to get money it should be invested in a way to end the debt in California. I would love to see the train built one day, but because of the current situation I dont think it would be wise.
Proposition 1A has some good ideas in, but come on! Do these people not realize that we are in enough debt as it is? Spending Billions and Billions on a train system that isn’t even guaranteed to be completed isn’t a very smart idea in my opinion. And even if this train was completed, it would take over 20 years for us to even have access to it. Sure there are pros and cons to the train, but this thing would just put us into even more debt. One of the supports to this proposition is that it would reduce highway traffic congestion, but what do you think is going to happen during those 20 years when the thing is being built? Sure it will help in the long run, but can you imagine how much traffic and problems there are going to be for the citizens while the project is in progress. A good thing about building this train system though is that it would reduce California’s need for foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, but that is still no reason to use up so much money when our state is already in a bad situation. What California needs to do is focus on what’s happening to our economy right now instead of focusing on what is going to eventually happen and they need to fix it soon before the situation gets worse
I am not sure how I would vote on this proposition, because, as with everything else, there are really good arguments both for and against it. First of all, I don’t think that we should be investing in something of this caliber at the moment. I think the priority right now is to figure out how to spend less, not more. If we have those kinds of resources, then they should be used for solving some of the more immediate problems. Another thing is I don’t think we should be destroying any of our wildlife preserves. Some people don’t realize how much we impact our environment and hurt it. Now, it would be great to have a means of quick transportation through California. Some of the problems it would solve would be having less people driving their cars on the road, less gas used, and a much easier commute for a lot of people. But, I don’t think Prop 1A is the answer right now. Use our money to fix the public transportation systems already here, promote carpooling and other environment friendly means of transportation. So I wouldn’t vote yes on 1A at this point in time. Is it a good idea for future projects? I think so, as long as we have our other issues under control.
Even though Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the rail expansion I do not think that it is such a good idea to have a train from Los Angeles to San Fransico. So, I personaly would not vote for California to fund a 40 billion high speed train because we have more important things to take care of. And they estimate that the whole train system will not be completed until around 2030. I think that in all the time we waste building that system, california could be using that money to pay off debts and get the economy back on a good level. Or if not then just fund more useful things, for example school funding is never a wrong way to go. there are many poor schools that cant afford good materials, so that is where funding comes in and gives the school new and improved supplies. I dont know to who this idea is a “good” idea, because it really isint. California Should NOT be spending money that they really dont have. And its true that its a faster way to get from LA to San Fransico, but its not worth spending all that time and money for it. I think california people should drive there themselves or if they dont want to waste gas they could even take a walk there. we are the fatest nation in the world any way. So In Conclusion I say NO! on Prop. 1A.
ITS A ******* IDEA!!!!
I think that Proposition A is a good idea because I consider it a good idea to be able to transport from Los Angeles to San Francisco in such a short time but If I had to vote for it right now I wouldn’t. I do not think that we are ready to be spending so much money right now because we are really in debt and why make the situation worse. I think we have bigger things to waste our money on instead of tansportation. We already do have transportation which is our cars so really that isn’t an emergency to do. That money they are planning on investing they should invest it on education because they are doing all this budget cuts on education and making us as students take longer to be able to graduate from college. Also if they start on this work it would make traffic worse around the area where they are going to create it and they aren’t going to finish soon but until a lot of years from now. In 2030 we are going to be very old so were not having going to have that possibility to be able to use it.
In conclusion, I don’t think this is a bad idea at all but I just don’t see it the right time to do it maybe later on when the economy is better then probably they would get my vote at least saying “yes” but right now if I could vote I would vote “no”
*Dalia Felix*
i would vote no on Proposition A because i do not believe we are in the perfect situation to be making new things and spending money on things that really arent needed. i mean yes it does sound convinent for many people, but where exactly are we going to get all this money for it. we cant even pay off this debt we are in and were asking people for money so i really dont understand where they think theyre going to get this money. i think that the money they are planning on using for this propostition should be used for educational purposes. with all the budget cuts that have been going on its pretty crazy how they can be focusing on stuff like this. so basically i vote no on proposition a.
bee
I believe that this proposition is a good idea, but there are pros and cons. Now the idea to have a railway that travels to northern California to southern California is a very good idea. The proposition has many positive aspects to it such as: Provides long-distance commuters with a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices.
Reduces traffic congestion on the state’s highways and at the state’s airports.
Reduces California’s dependence on foreign oil.
Reduces air pollution and global warming greenhouse gases.
Just to name a few.
But I do have to say that even thought this is a good idea and that I would vote for it, now is not the time. With the entire financial crisis going on in the country and the state I don’t think we could afford such a huge project. We are more than 2 billion dollars in debt and we don’t need another 600 millions to add to it.
State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year.
Overall this is a great idea and I would vote for it, but it’s a better idea for the future.
Ever since I can remember I have been taking trains throughout Southern California. Trains make a easier, reliable, and more safe transportation. I would most definitely vote yes on Proposition 1A. As we all already know in South California we have a major smog issue going on, by having a train transportation set up would help get rid of global warming and protect future generations. By making this train it would also benefit us because it would reduce congestion on our state highways to make it easier for other people traveling. Also, it would be a more effective and faster way to get to San Francisco and back to Los Angeles. Then when the train is finished and complete it will help save people money while gas prices are still rising. Yes, I do already realize that our state is in a major financial crisis right now, but I think in the outcome it will help us more then hurt us.
I think that proposition 1A is a good idea. There is a lot of business people who go back and forth from Los Angeles to San Francisco along with tourist and people with family in northern or southern California. My Family used to drive to Sacramento every other weekend to visit a family member who lived up there. It took us 6 hours to get there. Having a train that would take less time would have been a life saver. And with the price of gas now and the cost to fly I think that having a train would be a great alternative. With our economy the way it is I’m not sure if it’s good timing. But I think that people will embrace it and use the train and it could pay it self off as long as everything goes as planed.
Come to think of it, is Proposition 1A really necessary? A train to transport from San Francsico, Los Angeles, and Anaheim? It is said to be complete by 2030, thats 22 years from now. The cost is very expensive, this country is already in debt, why are they asking for more unessary things? It is said that the idea of this train will reduce CO2, that sounds great, but how bout the cars that are still gunna be out there, or different CO2 coming from other enviroments all over the world, yea it will help but in 22 years. The world is already contiminated to much. And this idea of this train has been delayed already four times, what if it happens again, it is a waste of time and money. This money can be use for other things, like repairing todays transportation, upgrading them to help the environment, instead building something extra.
So as you can see, I would not vote for Propsition 1A.
I like the idea of having this transportation system, but I think at this time we shouldn’t be using more money then we have to. We are already in a huge dept and we should first get a handle on that. I also don’t think we should be hurting many wildlife refuges, parks, and open spaces, to build this train system. We should take the transportation systems we have now and make them better. Improve them instead of building something else with tons of money. Even flying from LA to San Francisco, or vice versa, isn’t that bad. It’s not like some crisis or something that we need this train right now. I know it would be cheaper to take the train, if it was built, but right now it’s not worth it. For Proposition 1A I am going to have to say I would not vote for it.
Well although prop 1A sounds good and everything its kind of not the in California’s best interest to be spending mass amounts of money on a shuttle connecting LA to San Fran. If people want to go back and forth then why don’t they just take the road trip or fly cause what California as a state really needs right now is to focus on more national issues because the US is not really in a good place, jobs are hard to find, money for people now is becoming more and more scarce, and the cost of living has been booming these days cause of some pretty dumb reasons. I would vote no on prop 1A. Its in th right place but at the wrong time and we need to wait a few years to get back on our feet and then maybe we will consider it.
When i first read the proposition i thought that this woulod be aq wonderful idea. We could “kill a few birds with one stone” we could travel faster, safer, and use less gas. This would benefit us a lot. however i instantly had a change of heart as i continued to read on. To be completed in 2030? Thats a long time from now and we all know that we don’t have the money. The cost, we have to pay 40 billion dollars that we don’t have for this railroad system. So yes there are pros and cons to this train system. Maybe in a few years when we are no so deep in debt we could possibly try and create this railroad. As of today this year in this debt i would have to say no on prop 1A.
“Meeh”
So i read the whole Prop 1A and i got to say REALLY? come on everyone knows we dont have that kind of money to be wasting especially now where or economy is going bad. I don’t know why would this be even considered I mean yeah it would be good and less pollution means good things for Ms. Earth but we have to first take care of this whole “crisis” going on with money and stuff then worry about crossing from L.A. to San Francisco in a faster way. So i say NO dont do this, yet.
Proposition 1A has many things that can benefit us in the future but it can also hurt us in the future as well. First of all, having a transportation system that would go from San Francisco to Los Angeles can be helpful to us when we are traveling because we can reach from one of those destinations in a short amount of time rather than traveling by car. It can also reduce the consumation oil and gas so we wouldn’t use it as much.
As much as all of these reasons are true, I would vote no for proposition 1A. Of course one of the main reasons is obvious. It is that we are in a big, big budget crisis right now and if we agreed to this, then it would make it worse and then it would be too late to fix the economy. I don’t think that we would really need this. If we did, then this project would take more than 25 years to build. I just think that there would be no point into this except that you can get to your destination faster. Other than that, it is basically an easy call whether to vote yes or no to proposition 1A
Clearly we do not have the money to support this. I have no idea who thought up this “great” idea, but obviously… they were not thinking. I’m going to have to say, NO if I could vote I would surely not vote yes on Prop 1A. Sure it’s a good idea in the long run… if we had any money to 1. build it and 2. run it. Less pollution appears to be the only thing on the public’s mind right now, which is important yes but their is not much we can do to solve that over night. It’s a long process and is going to take some time to clean up. They should be using their brain right, do some basic math a realize OH we have money… this can wait.
I would vote no on proposition 1a.
I do feel like it would be amazing for California to have a railway that can go from Los Angeles to San Fransico. It would be a way for people to travel faster, it would improve traffic, and apparently be better on the environment too. But I don’t think the issue is how good of an idea it is, but whether it’s a feasible idea to think about pursuing given our current economic status. A couple of weeks ago we learned about the 15.2 billion dollar budget gap California is trying to fill. Last week we thought about how budget cuts are going to effect our everyday life. I’ve learned from these latest blogs that Califronia needs to stop spending money we do not have. That kind of spending is what has put the state in this financial posiition, and I don’t think issuing more bonds or borrowing money is the way we’re going to see our way out of it. Another reason I would vote no on prop 1a is because of the time it would take for the project to get finished, and the fact that there is no guarantee it will get done. It seems to be just a good idea.
Proposition 1A seems reasonable. I haven’t actually visited San Fransisco so I have no idea how long it currently takes to get there. I do know it takes awhile, but I don’t fall into the category of people needing to go there often if at all. With the economy the way it is right now I don’t know if we should be spending $9.95 billion on a $40 billion dollar high-speed train, but it’s not an outrageous amount. Plus, $950 million goes towards other rail lines to help with connectivity to the high-speed train. It’s not a bad prop, I would probably vote on it just because I know San Fransisco is a famous place where a lot of people DO go. I know some people don’t like Air Planes so a train might be a good alternative. But technical support for it would be costly, to manage 800 miles of track for the train. The charge for tickets would need to be high to pay back the money we spend on the train, especially in this time of economic crisis. 2030 is far away as well, so profit will not show for awhile, a very long while.
It’s a hard choice, I know it would help the environment, and in my opinion the cost is okay, but it would defiantly cause financial problems. That’s just my opinion.
After reading information on Proposition 1, I thought it is a good idea only for people who need it. Because not everyone will need that transportation. Besides, where is the money going to come from, I know that many companies, donors, are willing to donate money. But are they going to pay for all of the costs? What if something happens during the construction and needs more money, where are we going to get the money from? From the tax payers? I don’t think that is fair to them. If we have the money to build a brand new railroad system, why don’t we use that money to pay off all our debts first or improve our medical system or educational system? To me, it is wasting money, regardless donated or not. I would vote NO! Plus, if building a new railroad means destroying parks, homes, and other things I don’t think we should do it. I think we should solve all the problems we have now first, and then move on. If we don’t do that first, we are just asking for more problems.
As i started to read this i thought it would be a great idea. Getting from LA to San Francisco in only 2 hours and 40 minutes would be great, especially if I go to college in San Francisco. After i continued to read the information it states that it would cost 40 billion dollars and it would not be built until 2030. As of right now, our country is already in debt 15.2 billion dollars; building this for 40 billion dollars would not be a wisse decision. Because of these reasons i would vote no on proposition 1a.
Where are they planning to get all of this money? Seriously. Everything is going under because of the lack of money. So now they want to try and squeeze out more? It’s only going to make everything harder on everyone economically. It’s only going to make everything harder on everyone economically. Its will only make more taxes people have to pay making the rest of the world more poor. It won’t even be done until 2030. So we won’t even have profit on it, or pay any money back for 20 years.
I would say no on this because if you think about it, We are the ones who are going to be paying for it, but we aren’t the ones who will be able to enjoy it. 22 years from now it would be done. Another 20 years from then is probably when we MIGHT get anything back. By then, depending on the economical status, it won’t be that much better. I don’t think it is really worth it.
I think whoever votes yes on this prop needs to get the inside scoop on whats going on with our economy. If they do not know all the details they should at least know that everything is going out of business. I think we should keep this money in case we have a major and I mean major emergency. If we keep borrowing money in the end we are going to end up with nothing. Just think of it as these banks that loaned people money who could not pay the loans back. It is not a smart this to do. Also the one of our major businesses might go under, the car business. You think if we build a train from LA to San Francisco we are going to make more money? I think we are going to lose more money and ruin a major part of the car business. Don’t forget on all the money that we spend on gas. I don’t think it would be smart to lose all of that money. I don’t even know why they would even think of a prop like this. Maybe it’s a scam….
This proposition sounds good on paper but would it really be all that helpful? I like that it would be faster to get from one palce to another but it also means that we are going to be spending money that we barely have. They could be using the money to improve the roads and transportation systems we already have instead of starting from scratch. If they started a new project how do we know they’ll finish it. They could be using the money to help schools. If it’ll take 30 years to build I don’t think that it’s worth building it.
Proposition 1a sounds really good when you read it online. It sounds like it would really benefit people who travel for long distances and, i bet would, reduce greenhouse gases. Also it sounds like it would benefit many commuters who travel regularly on trains and/or buses. Proposition 1a definitely seems to be working towards a better fuel- reducing transportation method for commuters.
However, California should be worrying about how to pay the 15 billion dollars back that they owe before they start digging in to more projects. Maybe for another state that didn’t have a financial crises like we do, this would be something beneficial, but for us it would just dig us deeper in the hole.
I would not vote for proposition 1a, as goo as it sounds. Who is to guarantee us that this project will actually be completed? With such an unstable economy how are we to be sure that the state government will not have to freeze or completely close off this project sometime in the future? Overall it is just a waste of money that we don’t have. Like i have said California needs to stop acting like a girl with a credit card at the mall. We need to be realistic. Realistically speaking, California, at the moment has to plan towards saving and cutting back from these types of projects that might benefit society but are not vital to us.
This proposition would be great if we wernt in the position that we are in now. Our economy is struggling right now because of money we dont have or using money for not important things right now. I mean, building an extension from San Fransisco to Los Angeles in 2 and plus hours would be wonderful, but how are people going to pay to get on the train when they are in debt. We as Americans need to stop jumping to other projects and solve the main source so we can produce other projects. Alot of people are in debt right now and using money for a railroad track seems silly to me. Also, they’ve stated that the project wont be finished until 2030, wonder if the project never becomes finished, that was a waste of 40 billion dollars.Yes, there is a lot of pros and little cons for this arguement; but the little cons can mean a lifetime of struggle if Propostion 1A is passed.
I would vote no on Prop. 1A because it is a very bad time to be thinking of spending such great amounts of money. We are in a really big hole of debt, if this project does get started, we will never be able to finish it. It is stated that the train is not guranteed to be finished, that means it is absolutely not going to be finished. Right now we have no money to build this train, so we are going to borrow more money and be more in dept. Therefore, when we are about half way through the project, some problems will come up and will stall the construction, so with no money to be able to fix these problems, we won’t be able to finish the train. Even if the train does get finished and reduce CO2 emissions, it will destroy protected enviroments, so even though it polutes less, it would still harm the enviroment a great deal. So because this train helps in some ways, it harms in many other ways. It would be like taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back because now we would be in greater dept. I would vote no.
I really don’t believe that we are in the right moment to even be thinking of something like that. A train from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be nice but not at this time because of the financial crisis that is going on. We can’t be spending so much money on things like that. We should be spending it on things that can benefit us all and help with the crisis. We can’t afford to be spending anymore money on these kinds of projects right now. Maybe in the future if everything starts going well and we are stable then maybe we can make the train but for now I dont think it is a good idea at all. So I would vote no on Proposition 1A.
I asked my family if they knew what proposition 1A even was and of course they said “no i havent read my book on all the propositions” so from what i read about 1A yea it’d be a lovely idea but realistically california is not financially secure to deal with another costly project, we gotta figure out how we’re gonna get ourselves outts our $15billion debt before we take on any costly projects.
Bottom line i feel that we cant afford this at this time and plus the project would’nt be complete for what another 20yrs? I dunno i say No on proposition 1A. Maybe some other time.
I think that a train to San Francisco would be a wonderful commaditiy, but i also think that there are several things wrong with this picture. One, the state of California is already borrowing billions of dollars over our budget. how is it a good idea in any circumstance to put ourselves in any more of an extremely unstable economic situation than we are already in? Especially for a train, that seems like an idealistic commodity that the government and the PEOPLE of California can not afford.
Second, how often do people make weekly trips to San Francisco? If congress honestly thinks that building this train will make people not want to drive their cars, they are highly deluted. People are always going to choose their own cars over public transportation, just for the reason of convienence. I don’t believe that this fantasy would become an actual reality.
So, i don’t believe that i would vote for proposition 1A. i wish i was old enough to vote and allowed the opportunity to have my opinion included, but for now, i guess all we can do is spread awareness to other adults.
So I love San Francisco and I don’t like having to drive for a long time, but California doesn’t really NEED a train that goes from L.A. to San Francisco. Everyone that goes from L.A. to San Francisco either drives or flies already. We could be spending the billions of dollars it would take to build it on education and give money back to state colleges. Or even better, we can start to pay off the debt California is in. I think that debt should be more important than an unnecessary train. According to ballotpedia.org
There is no guarantee the project will ever be completed.
Building the rail system on the proposed route will have an adverse impact on 140-180 parks, wildlife refuges and protected open spaces.
It is a political boondoggle and a waste of money.
That alone should tell you that this train is not a wise way to use our money.
I would vote no on Prop 1A
I don’t think that Prop 1a is a good idea. A couple years ago, I would have defiantly voted yes for this proposition. It is environmentally friendly and provides transportation for people who don’t have any. I try to be very environmentally conscious; recycling, grocery shopping with a bag I brought from home etc. Also, by using this method of transportation, it saves a lot of potential CO2 from being emitted from cars into the atmosphere. Now I believe that it is a very bad idea. Our economy is plummeting quickly. Investing our money into this railway system is like being in debt with my mom. Say I’m 20 dollars in debt with her. Borrowing 100 more dollars won’t help my debt crisis. It will only take me longer to pay her back. And by the time I could pay her back, I would have had to borrow more money for movies or dinners. If we spend our money on a railway system it would take us longer to pay back our debt. By the time we got the money to pay our debtors, we would owe them more for other expenses that had added up. In addition, the main investment is going to the railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Honestly, how many people need to go to San Francisco every day? Not many. The road between San Francisco and here is less travelled than most. I don’t know anyone who goes out there enough to have to have a railway built. I’ve only ever been out there once! The money used for that railway could be spent towards more innovative travelling methods. For example, more trains through heavily populated cities, like a train going around LA. Maybe even clean air buses. There are many more alternative, more useful ways of using this proposed money; which we shouldn’t even use in the first place because we are in a deep financial crisis. That should be our main priority.
I think that proposition 1 A sounds like a good idea especially how gas prices are now and days. It is also a good way of transportation because its quick and safer. If it came down for me voting for prop 1 A i don’t think i would vote for it because the state is in depth right now and i think we should be spending that money on something better that can help our country or pay some of that depth we owe.
bhsjfvjsdfgyuf. I vote no on Prop 1A. We need to focus on the economy crisis that has struck our state rather than waste billions of dollars on a unnecessary project. ITS CALLED THE METRO PEOPLE! i agree with lizzie, who travels to san francisco everyday?! its not like people from los angeles are planning to commute to san francisco or vise versa. This is a horrible proposition. just even thinking about it fustrates me.
If i could vote on proposition 1A i would vote no because california is already in debt. Before we focus on transportation i think we need to focus on fixing the budget in california. I think after california isn’t in debt anymore and where able to give more funds to health care, education and other important programs then i will be all for proposition 1A. I dont think transportation should be even close to the top of are needs list at this moment.
“Building the rail system on the proposed route will have an adverse impact on 140-180 parks, wildlife refuges and protected open spaces” As if we don’t have enough problems with the conservation of wildlife, let’s throw a train right in the middle of them. Let’s spend billions of dollars! … That we do not have.
Granted, that may have sounded a bit biast… I’m sorry but I really don’t see why we need a high speed train in California. Think about it, we have the Metro and how many people use that everyday? I’ll tell you… not as many as we had hoped for.
The arguments for Prop 1A are adequate, but the arguments against Prop 1A seem to beat out the good.
Gas prices; Californians would save money
Wildlife refuges; gone
Traffic : reduced without raising taxes
BUT we have to pay the cost of the train, with money we don’t have… I’m sorry do we not have a budget crisis occuring as I type?
I doubt the train would be used very much unless it was for vacationing purposes… and at this point in time, with the cost of pretty much everything, I highly doubt anyone is going to be vacationing anytime soon.
The idea may sound pleasing but the bad weighs out the good.
No on Prop 1A
I would vote no on prop 1A because it will be a waste of money that we don’t have. it doesn’t benefit everyone also. I would understand and agree prop 1a if it benefited everyone in some way but it doesn’t .It will just be a waste of money for the state. They should spend the money that they are going to spend on building of the train on something more important. They should spend it on paying off other things that we need payed off. Or they should spend the money on something that is going to help everyone in someway . So i think that prop 1a is a bad idea and that we shouldn’t vote on it and spend the money on something better.
My family and I travel to San Francisco about once a year. When we go by car it takes us about 8 hours. But one year my dad couldn’t take days off so my mom, brother, sister and I traveled on the Greyhound. We would have gone on the train but it made way too many stops and it would take longer than the bus trip. On the Greyhound it took us about 23 hours. I absolutely hated it!! When I first looked at the proposition and saw that it was take 2 hours and 40 minutes, I automatically thought “Go for it!” Of course reality soon kicked in and I saw all the negative aspects of the proposition.
OK, so California is trying to find a solution for all the pollution in our state. The way I see it, unless you have money to spend, you shouldn’t go around looking for ways to spend money. Since we are in a debt, we should first find ways to make money, other than raising taxes. Sure this proposition would be very useful for people who constantly travel to and from LA and San Francisco. This is a very bad year to even put this proposition in the ballet. Especially since people are being so tight with their money, I would be surprised if this proposition even gets a third of the vote. My advice to Proposition 1A. Try again 10 years from now.
After reading information on Proposition 1a, i think Southern California does not need a train that goes to San Francisco. i think it would be a waste of borrow money, to build a train that goes that far. the demand of people that need to go travel across the state, isnt that high. i think we should use that money for something else. or just not borrow it if we really dont need it.
There is already public transprotaion that will takes you from northern Ca to southern CA. i that a friend that takes the train(s) from LA and takes a train(s) all the way to UC Davis, and back.
so i really dont think we should borrow all that money to build a train.
As far as proposition 1A goes, I feel that it is a good ideal that has the potential to be an adequate contribution to solving the economic solution. It would create a number of short and long jobs, (i.e. rail road construction, train driver), increase tourism in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas, and greatly saturate the public transportation economy.
HOWEVER, even though I do feel that it is potentially the right solution, I do not feel it is our solution right now. Since the completion of the train would not be complete until 2030, I am afraid that the profits of the project would be felt too little, too late.
After reading prop 1A, I don’t think we need another train that goes from Los Angeles to San Francisco. We already have a train that runs to San Francisco from L.A. The state doesn’t have money to be making another line that already exists.
If the prop does pass, taxes will be even higher. The economy is already going under. Taxes will get higher; no one is going to be able to pay taxes. It does sound like a good idea to have it. The gas prices are too high, and the prices for airline tickets are ridiculous!
Overall I wouldn’t vote for prop 1A. California doesn’t have money for that right now. We should be focusing on other money problems now, like paying the government workers. Maybe later on when the economy is doing better, we could expand the railroads to have better transportation.
I think after reading the article on Prop 1A, I believe that I would vote no, because I think that trying to allocate 9.95 billion dollars for a high speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco with the financial situation being the way that it is now is another recipe for trouble. Considering thatalifornia is in a very serious financial situation, throwing away almost 10 billion dollars on a train is not the way to go. Even though I think that the state of California would eventually make that money back, I still beileve that spending such a vast amount of money at such a wrong time is the worst thing that we as a state can do.
After I read prop 1a i laughed because to do this would be ridiculous 10 billion dollars for California to make a train. If we already have trains going through L.A. and San Francisco. We need to payback all our loans that we owe thats why we shouldn’t do this.
Proposition IA has good ideas but is their really a need for that train. The train cost way too much money and that money is just going to be sitting there because its not going t be ready until 2030. The United States is going through a financial crisis and I am pretty sure this will not help the cause. California as well has a financial crisis because this year California just made it s budget and that was because it borrowed more money. The government should be prioritizing and i think the train should be one of the lowest priority if not the lowest one. Yes it would be cool to be in San Francisco in less than 3 hours but where is the thrill of looking at the outdoors when your traveling through an automobile and if you want to get to San Francisco fast then there is always planes. No i would not vote for it for two reasons, one because i am no old enough yet. And two because that is just an act that will waste time, money and create a problem between the people which the state nor the federal government need at this point of time.
Proposition 1A is a good thing for all the community. There are some things I really don’t like about this and there are some things that I do. Some examples of the things I don’t like about Proposition 1A is the money part. That is because as we all know that the state of California has some what of a money debt, because this year there barely made there budge, and in my opinion they were lucky, and if they were to make this happen it would come to a total of 40 billion dollars. I am not saying Proposition 1A is a bad idea but we should thinking about it a little more, because it’s something we don’t need to be worrying because we have bigger problems. For example the U.S economy is not doing real good. So we should worry about fixing that before spending are time and money on something we don’t need at the moment. Some of the things I do like about Proposition 1A are that it would be way faster transportation form Los Angeles to San Francisco. If they were to build this train it would take 2 hours and 40 minutes to get there either from LA to SF or from SF to LA. It would also be I good idea for the people that want to work in San Francisco and live in LA or the other way around. If I was old enough I wouldn’t vote for it because there’s bigger things we should be worrying about, but if the US economy and California’s budget was doing fine proposition 1A would have my vote.
No, I would not vote for this. Only because we won’t have the money to be ale to pay back the money we borrowed from our American citizens. If I were to take money and do something risky it should be for something that will benefit america fast and would be of significance for the future. for example( Taking a few billion dollars to build and look into more independent energy sources.) I do however, believe that Proposition is a good ides, but without the immediate financial strength that good idea will turn into a nightmare. The train tickets will turn into costly prices ( This is just some money will be made up) and they will cost just as much as or little to no difference than a plane ticket.
Noooo I will vote no to 1A is a lot a money that we dont have it in this moment. We are in a crisis and basicactly we have to focus on the economy right now. Doing that right now it would be a waist of time and more than nothing money. Just thinking about this it makes me mad because they have to think about how to get the country out of this they are thinking about this simple stuff
I do not think prop 1A should pass, we do not have the money to suffice this project. Before we decide on taking on more money-spending projects, we should earn back the money we need to simply keep California’s economy well active. This plan shoulod not be proposed until we have the sufficient funds to execute it.
examples:
this will affect my life by increasing the already-raising state taxes, which I would have to pay. it would financially hurt myself and my family because we would be paying for the construction and usage of a public service that we will not even be using.
So Proposition 1A sounds like a scam. Well that’s not exactly true.
Proposition 1A is a proposal to build a fast train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, cutting into wildlife reserves and protected area. On a plan it takes like a 1 hour not including all the hassle of the airport and driving is 7 hours. So technically this high-speed train would be faster but with the budget crisis I do not see how it is practical. 9.95 billion dollars to build a train that might be done in 2030…. Crazy. I would not vote for Prop. 1A it just doesn’t make sense.
I dont not agree wit prop 1A, in my opinion we should not be borrowing more money when this country is already in debt. Why are we gonna put more gas in a fire when we are trying to put the fire out. This is a waste of resources and money. We cant make effort for the future when the present time is not even stable and we dont know the outcome off the problem that we have at the present time.
At first I thought Proposition 1A was a good idea, but that was untill I read the argueements against it. This train would really benifit alot of people. Some people would have to take a 7 hour drive to San Fransisco, or an 1 hour plane ride not including the time sent to get ready for the trip and airport check in. I like the fact that it will eliminate the amount of CO2 in our air. Although the amount time it take to complete this projuct takes way to long, and the cost is way to much for the way economy is going right now. That 9.95 billion dollars can be sent on better things such as replacing education cuts. I do not like how it would cut into the wildlife. We can just expand the transportation we have now and once the economy is better we can think about having this project. For now this propostion is a bad idea and the money can be spent on better things. I would not vote for this propostion.
If i could vote on prop 1A I would definitely NOT vote for it. Its not only adding to our a states ever increasing deficit but it messes up so many parks and recreational areas. i could possibly understand if it just expanded the railroads like stated on the 1A reference site but starting from scratch is just a complete waste of time and resources. I think that the fact that this project has been postponed this many times is a sign that it should just be put off indefinitely when the state is not in a $3,107,023,275 debt.(http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdlac/)
I dont not agree with prop 1A, in my opinion we should not be borrowing more money when this country is already in debt. Why are we gonna put more gas in a fire when we are trying to put the fire out. This is a waste of resources and money. We cant make effort for the future when the present time is not even stable. We dont know the outcome of the problem that we have at the present time. So i believe that should spend the money we have right now one our economic problems and then build train tracks we dont need.
Mr puther, i accidently posted the uneditied version of my blog under the name of Martin Rodriguez sorry for the inconvienience.
Proposition 1A is a good thing for all the community. There are some things I really don’t like about this and there are some things that I do. Some examples of the things I don’t like about Proposition 1A is the money part. That is because as we all know that the state of California has some what of a money debt, because this year there barely made there budge, and in my opinion they were lucky, and if they were to make this happen it would come to a total of 40 billion dollars. I am not saying Proposition 1A is a bad idea but we should thinking about it a little more, because it’s something we don’t need to be worrying because we have bigger problems. For example the U.S economy is not doing real good. So we should worry about fixing that before spending are time and money on something we don’t need at the moment. Some of the things I do like about Proposition 1A are that it would be way faster transportation form Los Angeles to San Francisco. If they were to build this train it would take 2 hours and 40 minutes to get there either from LA to SF or from SF to LA. It would also be I good idea for the people that want to work in San Francisco and live in LA or the other way around. If I was old enough I wouldn’t vote for it because there’s bigger things we should be worrying about, but if the US economy and California’s budget was doing fine proposition 1A would have my vote.
I believe that proposition 1A is a good thing but its also a bad thing. The reason why its a good thing is because it eliminates the traffic and all the stress of driving for six hours. Its also good because famailes will see each other more and be more united because it takes less time to get there. The reason why I think its a bad thing is because the united states is in debt and its a major crisis. I believe before we srtart spending mass amount of money we need to solve or debt problem. NO
IN PROPOSITION 1A…..
ON PROPOSITION 1A…..
At the moment I don’t think that we should build a train from LA to San Francisco due to the current budget crisis. Also if its going to be complete in 2030 I think that is way to much time to compete a project. If it were to pass and they did start to build it, I think it would be a good idea because it would get rid of a lot of pollution from all the cars going back and forward. Also i don’t know by then if there is going to be a invention that is made that reduces the pollution all together. If people did take the train to San Francisco, they wouldn’t even have a car when they got there unless they rented one. Over all I don’t think it will be a good idea due to all the new things that are coming out.
So proposition 1a eh?
There isn’t too much to say.
It is a good idea. Bad timing.
It would save gas, money, would be more environmentally friendly, but we just cannot afford it.
I don’t understand why would they even bring up this proposition at THIS moment. CA is in bad shape with debt and just because they put off to deal with for next year doesnt mean they can make the debt bigger. Plus it should be completed in 2030. That is way too of a long time to wait. We might have flying cars buy then. My point is that we do not need to worry about building ANYTHING right now because we dont know what is going to happen in 20 some years and why would we build something new when everything we have already is falling apart? We cannot afford it!!!
Again if it i was a better timing i might have voted yes on prop 1a as of right now..
absolutely not.
There is no way that i would vote for Proposition 1A. It is not that the proposition is a bad one, but I just don’t think that we need something this expensive at the moment. Sure the gas prices are high, but a 10 billion dollar high speed train will not help too much. Besides it won’t even be completed until 2030. It is just too expensive (even if it is in bonds) and it will take too long to complete. There is just no way that I can see myself voting for this unnecessary proposition.
Proposition 1A is asking to approve about $10 billion dollars in bonds. If it is approved we would temporarily gain money, which would be spent on the $40 billion train. That is only a fourth of what the train costs, and it needs a billion dollars a year for maintenance. After we have spent even more money on a train that might not even be finished and that would put us in even further debt, the bonds we will approve will have matured. The combination of the cashed in bonds and the incomplete train being constructed would cripple our economy even further than it is now. I don’t think approving the bonds would help us in any way, and the same goes for the train. We would only be digging a deeper hole. Even if the train was a huge success, do you really think it will be enough to pay off our debt and the bonds?
Prop 1A would I vote for it. Well I see it like this we are already in a debt, why add even more money to it. I would vote yes if we were not in a monetary crisis. Yes, because not only will it be convenient to people that travel back and forth from N. Cali to S. Cali but it also would help reduce air pollution. Also it would bring many jobs to CA. But since we are in an economic crisis and cannot afford to add even more to our debt I would have to vote no. On top of that we would not have this train until like 30 years from now so at this point it would not really matter. Not only will the cost to build this train be millions but the maintenance costs will be a lot of money also. How much would we end up paying for a ticket to rain this fast speed train? It would probably be a lot more money than airfare.
i believe that proposition 1a is a waste of time. Especially now when California is in great need of financial aid. The train would cost about $40 billion to build. i really don’t feel that we should risk the little or no money we ave to build this false or uncertain hope. I don’t feel that borrowing money from people would help either. Its like using a state credit card. You’ll be fine for now but sooner or later you’re going to have to pay all that money back and if the train is not successful you just added $40 billion dollars plus $1 billion per year for maintenance. It is a giant risk that i don’t believe we should take. if i were to vote i would vote no on proposition 1a.
Well I think it’s a waste of money just to make a train lines. We should be using that money for schools, for the use to help out the homeless, and for other issues that we have. We could use that money for other things now instead of having it used to build something that will be used 20 years from now. I wouldn’t vote for it because its makes no sense to throw money on projects that will be complete in 20 yrs. If you actually think about it how many people would go to San Francisco from Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes. We could go in a car and enjoy the beauty of
I would vote no on this proposition because I believe it is a huge waste of the taxpayers money. That money could be used for more useful projects. With our economy in crisis, we need to be smart with where we put our money. Instead of making rail line that money could be used to fix the free way problem instead. That would benefit many more Americans, who have problems getting to work. I think that putting that 9.95 billion dollars towards the free way problem, or towards education would benefit our state way more. This train is more a luxury than a necessity. I’m sure it would make traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles a lot easier, but come on, how man Californians would really benefit from that train? Think about it percentage-wise I’m sure it is very miniscule. I think Californians need more help getting from lets say “Pomona to West Covina” than they do traveling over 300 miles. People don’t have the money to vacation, and it seems more of a vacation type of trip than anything else.
I Think I would have to say no to Proposition 1a. We are already in a debt crisis, so we shouldn’t be spending much anyways. Especially since the economy is going crazy right now we should be cautious and thoughtful of where our money is going to. If we weren’t in such a huge debt and the banking crisis didn’t happen I would be happy to vote yes for it but unfortunately that’s not the situation. It would take too long for us to gain profit from the train, and right now if we are going to invest into building something, that something should be cheap and able to make profit fast because we can’t afford to wait around, time is money after all.
CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY!!!! America is in a rescission right now and cannot afford to use 19.4 billion of the little money we do have to support Prop 1A. Yes the idea is a great one because it can reduce the chaos on the roads, minimize air pollution, and bring more job opportunities. Prop 1A may possibly bring pollution down, but that it. If it is passed it will accentually cause California to lose money because the cost of the trains itself is about 4 million dollars maybe even more, and the yearly maintenance of the train will eventually add up!
So to answer the question would I vote for Proposition 1A, the answer is “NO”. “Why” I would not vote for 1A is because California cannot afford to lose money right now. Prop 1A in no way would bring profit because of the fact that it will take about 30 years to pay off (2039), that just is an idiotic move. To support this proposition is like to elect president Bush for another term; complete an utter disaster.
The points made by the article about proposition 1A are all valid and I am well aware of the financial crisis effecting Americans world wide however I feel commencing the construction of a train that drives from Los Angeles (LA) to San Francisco (SF) is a beneficial endeavor. As the price of gas goes up so does the demand for public transportation, consentient of prop 1A is doing just that by giving the public what they want.
The train may seem to be a burden to the economy right now but the benefits of the operation outweigh the initial $647 million per year sacrifice. The first way the high-speed passenger train project helps the economy is by providing jobs to the thousands of construction out of work due to the halt in constriction.
The second benefit is in the area of gas, proposals like proposition 1A alleviate some of the dependency we Americans have on foreign fuel by providing other means of transportation. The train can also spur the economy by attracting tourrist to come in spend money in not only the large cities like LA and SF but surrounding ones as well.
The third benefit is that the train provides both construction jobs during the train is being built and maintenance jobs for after the train is built. Based on the data given, i am confident to say that i support prop 1A because of the benefits it gives to Americans.
I would NOT vote for Prop 1A because its not really necessary for us to have a train that goes from San Fransisco to LA. We have much larger issues at hand here, and a train should not be one of our big worries. We could use the billions of dollars they want to spend on a train on more important things, such as education. College funding is ridiculously low, and they keep cutting the budget, but they want to spend billions on a train? California needs to get its priorities straight.
Personaly I would enjoy seeing a super speed train because of mostly the speed and proof of technology advances of it but i would have to vote no on it mainly for the fact that california can’t afford it at this time and even if we could it isnt a for sure that it will ever be completed. the pros of it are very convincing, it would be fun to have such a quick and safe form of transportation but it doesnt seem cost effective and it doesnt seem like it would cut back on very much gas because of the fact that i dont think it would be all that popular if it only goes an small ammount of places.
Dragracekid
Like most of you, I will have a difficult time voting yes on this proposition, because of our current economic crisis. With the federal bailout of Wall Street and now California potentially asking the federal government to bail them out, I am not comfortable pack on the debt.
However, we do need projects like this to create jobs and expand the economy. Therefore, there may be a project out there that I would vote for even if we have to borrow to build it.
Eventough the state is really trying to make the comunity better like keeping the streets clean and taking pollution to a lower level it is a pretty bad time to borrow money. We are already in so much dept that people are losing their things like houses, cars, businesses, etc.
My votewill go towards the negative side of this proposition but if the state decides to so borrow money for the better being of the state i will not go to much against it.
Proposition A seems to be a good prop to me. It makes since and seems like it will get what California need done. Seeing how populative California is i think we can accomplish this deal, just look how much money we bring in compared to any other state! Though i can see why everyone would just turn this down, and we don’t need to be in more of a depth than we are now, so most likely the best thing to do is to just wait for more opportunities to show to us, that will give us a sure-fire way to fix our economy
I had already done this blog before, and I said that I support the ideas behind Prop 1A, but do not think I would vote for it because of the current economic crisis.
Well, voting already happened, Prop 1A already passed, so in rewriting my blog I would rather focus on it how it is currently. Since Prop 1A already passed, we may as well look at the positive outcomes. This train will provide an alternative to many people who travel this distance for business reasons. It will also create many jobs, which is something that we should look forward to. It will help the environment and save people time and money. It could help ease traffic. In the end, the train will have been a great investment. Plus, the money is in bonds, so it’s not like they will have to be paid back right now.