State

I'm torn regarding the rail system.

One of my concerns regarding the rail is the price to ride. To ride Metrolink from San Bernardino to Union Station in L.A. it costs $20 round trip. It would cost me about $15 in gas at $4/gallon to drive round-trip. So, with wear and tear added in, I'm almost not ripped off by the fare. However, if more than one person is traveling it's not remotely worth it to take Metrolink instead of driving.

Agree,

Regarding MetroLink..

I was one of "those" who commuted to downtown Los Angeles, the cost factor kept me from trying MetroLink

Then, one day, I did the MetroLink thingy..

For almost 10 years I rode MetroLink from that day till I retired.

That first trip....

All I could think of was... look at all that traffic out there, look at all the stress going on. I took a nap, read the newspaper, had wonderful conversations with the other riders.

Then, I got to work...

My co-workers asked what had happened, one asked a VERY inappropriate question. Why was I so relaxed when I got to work that early?

I was sold.. rode Metrolink from that day forward. Yeah, if I had carpooler's (wow, can that get ugly) it would be cheaper.

Safety wise, even in spite of the recent disaster, MetroLink is far safer than driving.

Special mention,

On those bad weather days.... I was the first in the office, had my cup of coffee and being productive. The rest of my co-workers would straggle in, up to 2 hours late, grumble grumble grumble.

One finally looked at me and said "MetroLink?" I replied yeah... he said.. hmmmmm... and walked away. Became another devoted rider

Beagledude, When I took the Acella Express from DC to New York City it was probably the same cost but a whole lot easier. The seats were like I was on a first class flight but the fare was the same as an economy class fare on an airplane. You could walk to the cafe car to get food. To get on the train the summer after 9/11 took about 20 minutes. I would love this compared to flying to San Francisco from here. Because of all the hassles right now all of our employees doing business up there prefer driving from down here compared to flying. We do quite a bit of business up in Northern California. If there were trains equal to what they have in New York, I'm sure everyone would prefer to use them.

I agree with the stress factor. One of our offices is off of the red line, so when I have to go there I choose Metrolink over driving.

And don't underestimate that "wear and tear" factor. The last estimate I read from Auto Club was over $.80 per mile for maintenance, insurance, depreciation and financing costs. Driving yourself is not efficient unless you drive for a living instead of going to a single point and dwell until the end of the day. Part of the cost of metrolink is the lack of planning for urban transportation decades ago. We dismantled the rail system that was working in the late 1800's and early 1900's and gave up those rights of way. Had we updated those systems we would have highspeed maglev or vacuum tunnels underground going everywhere.

There was an editorial in the WSJ this morning on the rail proposal which I'll summarize (hopefully acccurately) below:

California has a debt obligation right now of $145 billion. This initiative will add an additional 9.95 billion. But this is just the beginning, the state Rail Authority has admitted that the total esimate to build this system is 45 billion more than 50 % more than there original estimate of 30 billion. The actual cost will likely be even more than the 45 billion as the latest estimate does not include such things as additional costs for building in earthquake zones etc.

The ridership projections that the Rail Authority is making, which supposedly will make this sytem pay for itself is also not reasonable. They are projecting a yearly ridership of 65 million which would be a higher ridership number than has been acheived anywhere in the world including France and Japan which are the biggest rail markets.

They are also promising a ticket price of $70 bucks which is half of Japan's Tokyo to Osaka run or France's Paris to Marseille run.

Further, to meet the legislature's time requirement (2 hours and 42 minutes) the train will have to sustain average speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour which also has not been acheived anywhere in the world over distances of this sort.

In short, you have a system that will increase the state's long term debt by tens of billions of dollars and the assumptions that are being made that this rail system will sustain itself are unreasonable.

To add to my previous comment, we're contemplating increasing the state's debt by about 30 percent, when all is said and done, to obtain a rail system that, at best, will travel between So. Cal and the Bay Area in 2 hours and 42 minutes. The projected ticket cost is $70 bucks which is cheaper than Southwest but not decisively so. Realistically, the cost will be more than $70 bucks which means it won't even be cheaper than flying.

Billions of dollars in cost for our children to pay when those bonds come due for a slower transportation system that will be just barely be cost competitive with airplanes.

I'm voting no.

How about prop 4? It sounds like a good thing to me.
prop 9 sounds good. Any thoughts?

I'm voting no on Prop 4. Kids aren't the best decision makers, so if a girl is pregnant and going to terminate it and doesn't want her parent(s) to know she'll have the procedure in less than ideal circumstances at increased personal risk.

For me, Prop 4 comes down to parents wanting to be involved in the lives of their children. They can achieve that by establishing a good relationship with their children.

I'm not sure about 9.

argee
a yes vote means they'll waive the 48 hours or creates the notification?

Some of these are worded a bit hard to understand.

bump

For Prop 4, a yes vote will require notification to a girl's parents and she won't be able to have the procedure (chemical or surgical) until after 48 hours have passed after the notification. Parental consent is not required, just the notification.

It also nearly eliminates the use of the "morning after pill" which you need within 72 hours, I think, thereby pushing more kids into the position of requiring a surgical, riskier procedure.

I also think that if a kid is savvy enough, they'd provide the phone number of a friend, who would pretend to be a parent.

beagledude, When I took the Acela express from BWI airport station in Maryland to New York City, the fare was probably the same as flying from there. What I loved about the train was there was no waiting in security lines, having to get to the airport 90 minutes early, etc. I got to the train 20 minutes ahead of time and when it stopped, took my luggage right on board with me. I had my son with me so we had two large suitcases and two small ones. The seating on the train was like sitting first class on most airplanes. They had luggage stalls you put your luggage into not too far from where we sat. We could walk to the cafe car and get wonderful food. I would definitely ride a train like that to San Francisco.