Pluses, minuses of super-rail system
Re “Bullet trains won’t get us anywhere,” Current, Feb. 11
James Moore seems to love air travel and disdain train travel. He also disparages the safety of train travel, yet it surely is safer than travel by car and is probably safer than travel by air. Perhaps most important, his analysis never mentions that planes must be fueled by oil, inevitably adding carbon to Earth’s atmosphere.
In contrast, trains can run on electricity, which can be generated by solar and wind power. Indeed, in California, such power can be generated in close proximity to a San Francisco-to-Los Angeles railway right of way. Or one from L.A. to Las Vegas.
BEN ZUCKERMAN
UCLA professor of physics
and astronomy
Los Angeles
*
Moore argues that the cost is prohibitive for a super-rail system linking San Francisco, L.A. and San Diego. He says that building more airports is cheaper and more efficient than a statewide super-rail system. But some choices are worth the expected extra cost.
Rail in the rest of the world is popular and safe. More airports are unsightly and bring massive congestion on the roads (witness LAX). And a sophisticated statewide rail system could bring commerce to new places in California. Contrary to Moore’s perspective, a bullet train would be a viable alternative to building more roads and airports.
ANDREW KAY LIBERMAN
Santa Monica
*
It appears that Moore fails to appreciate the causal link between transportation and land use. High-speed trains would not only serve as an alternate means of transportation in the state, they would encourage more sustainable forms of development. Similar to how freeways encourage low-density growth, bullet trains would encourage and make possible true transit-oriented development -- the pinnacle of “smart growth.”
Imagine walking from home somewhere in the Central Valley to the train station and being in Silicon Valley or Los Angeles in less than an hour. Imagine the number of cars taken off the road and the amount of exhaust not emitted. This system could dramatically reshape land-use patterns in the state, and for that reason alone we must pursue it. It is not simply a question of utility in the present but rather potential for the future.
DANIEL VANWIE
San Jose
*
Moore hit the nail right on the head when he called for the elimination of the group heading up the study of a bullet train for California. Without a car payment and insurance, the train may be an economical option, but not for the California masses with cars that go door to door.
Another problem is that there would be no competition for California’s bullet train to keep prices in line. A government-run program is doomed to be a high-cost failure at both ends -- building it and running it. There are better ways to spend the money.
MIKE MANCUSO
San Jose
