LAist: Will High Speed Rail Ruin Communities?

Jeremy

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:21:45 -0800

Nice pollution scare from the lawyer with the highways analogy. Except an electric train doesn't make local pollution. Oh, and even an express train would slow down in an urban area. Nobody's going to be standing next to a 225 mph train. My guess...airline lawyer. Even though the fares will probably be about the same, not having to go to the airport will decimate the flying population, not to mention downtown-to-downtown service.

peekist

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:12:12 -0800

those small communities will be pissed when gas prices get high enough, that it becomes prohibitively expensive to deliver services to those communities and or transportation to and from those communities.

tornadoes28

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:00:55 -0800

You know what's going to destroy communities. All the smog and air pollution and global warming from all the cars and dirty jet liners. No, high speed rail is not going to destroy communities. It's going to replace cars and jet trips. It's these nimby idiots that will destroy communities.

paul

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:57:37 -0800

Also, the reason the French got a pretty price for their land has a lot more to do with their amazingly government-favoring imminent domain laws than it going through the countryside.

jrb

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:57:28 -0800

I blame NIMBYisim. I betcha nearly everyone who votes for, and thinks HSR is a good idea will end up fighting it if it come too close to their little comfort zone. I'm reminded of Prop 215, the Medical Marijuana initiative of 1996. If you were to look at the numbers Santa Monica residents probably came in a good 75% in favor of 215. But pass around a petition to allow a cannabis club there. Or better yet try and get the business permits from SM City Council to open a cannabis club there. Ain't gonna happen!

paul

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:55:18 -0800

What type of lawyer is Mahoney? Wouldn't be surprised if doesn't have some vested interest in the turnout of all these. It's a shame that this sort of crap regarding high-speed rail makes it into papers and blogs, yet overwhelming positive op-eds don't. Have you seen studies that show when something is mentioned as erroneously negative, even if it is soon disproved, in the long term (aka, come november) people remember the negative as true? Yes, I believe people can have different opinions, I am just of the opinion our papers have a responsibility to make sure the op-eds are not smear pieces and actually have concrete, informed, opinions behind them. Plus if he had done his research the time between LA and SF should be under 2 hours, not 2.5.

peekist

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:52:31 -0800

sadly a lot of politicians either bash or just do not support long term projects. the reason being while they can get "political ammunition" taking up the cause of the people against said large projects. if they were to support long term projects they are rarely still in office to take credit for it upon completion. why do you think there has been virtually no expansion in the Los Angeles metro system in the last 10 years.

BingosDingo

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:48:57 -0800

The rails are still there. In fact the highway, since rail came first, runs parallel to the rail. Cruishank nailed it. Don't believe me? Google maps Merced, CA and zoom in to highway 99. Which begs the question. Why doesn't Michael Mahoney know this already if he's a lawyer who follows transportation issues. I blame excess focus and political motivation. The usual challenges to facts.