Opinion: Does anyone want the bullet train? Hoping for L.A. to S.F. in three hours feels lonely

Few topics draw the kind of near-universal opprobrium from our letter writers as high-speed rail in California. The promised Los Angeles-to-San Francisco route drew plenty of reader skepticism when California voters passed Proposition 1A in 2008, authorizing about $10 billion in bond sales to fund the system; and it’s drawing even more now, judging by the reaction to George Skelton’s column expressing grudging acceptance of the project.

As someone who was born in the Bay Area but raised in L.A. County — and who attended college “up north” but made the drive “down south” to live and work as an adult — I’d love nothing more than to board a train here and find myself in San Jose or Oakland in three or four hours. Not even the frequent flier’s delight of Burbank Airport matches the convenience of L.A. Union Station.

For as long as I can remember, a north-south bullet train — or at least something faster than Amtrak’s 12-hour coastal crawl — has been the butt of “if the French can do it” complaints. And it’ll have to be for a while longer, because if these letters bear any resemblance to public opinion, not many of us want this train.

————

To the editor: I wish you would not run any more stories of any sort related to the fantasy “bullet train” project that Skelton wrote about (in a very professional and even-handed manner) in the Christmas Day edition of The Times.

The reason for my request is that whenever the subject is mentioned, I notice that my face begins to feel flush and hot, my hands automatically fly to my keyboard, and I feel suddenly as though I should boycott all state taxes. I call it “de-training fever.”

There are only three words I have for the whole project: stupid, stupider, stupidest.

Mark Driskill, Long Beach

..

To the editor: Do Californians need a bullet train that will “carry passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours,” when a plane takes one hour?

Building a high-speed rail line in the Central Valley without connecting the system to the heavily populated Bay Area and Los Angeles metro areas illustrates the incompetence of those behind this project.

Janet Polak, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: We can make the bullet train work by tolling the freeways, which shouldn’t be free anyway.

Every limited-access divided highway should be tolled at the onramps and offramps, with all revenue pledged for construction of high-speed rail and thereafter for maintenance and for subsidizing train tickets.

The tolls should be linked to air fare: Whatever it costs on average to fly from Los Angeles to San Francisco should be the cost to drive the same route.

Jamie Shepherd, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Skelton’s statement, “You don’t spend $11 billion on a project, as California has, and then abandon it,” is ridiculous. It is proposed that we spend another $100 billion or more to bail out a failing project.

It is time for a thorough independent review of the system. What might such a review conclude?

• The project is not viable and should be shut down. Funds could be better spent on regional transportation projects.
  
• The project is viable but needs reliable funding to complete. California should be willing to commit adequate annual funding for this project without new taxes. The state has a huge economy, and its budget should be able to fund a major intrastate transportation project.
  
• The review could recommend that management of this project be transferred to a more competent private sector contractor with a demonstrated ability to manage large projects.

Continuing with the present situation is the worst option.

William Fletcher, Newport Beach

..

To the editor: Economics 101 teaches us that one of the worst reasons for spending money is sunk costs — that is, basing decisions on the money that has already been spent. One should only spend money if the expected value exceeds the money yet to be spent, and if future funding is available.

Skelton points out that the bullet train is currently “projected to cost a gargantuan $110 billion. And that estimate keeps growing.” He’s right about that.

The current estimate is three times the original, and in the end the system will likely cost far more. The bullet train is not worth it. A state that is facing a $68-billion budget shortfall cannot afford this vanity project, and Washington needs to reduce our enormous national debt, not add to it.

Hal Bookbinder, Oak Park

..

To the editor: Skelton’s beseeching of the readership to support the hastily approved so-called bullet train, which is destined to move far slower at a far higher cost than originally promised, has not fallen on deaf ears.

I will urge my family and friends to use it on their many planned trips from Bakersfield to Merced in the year 2030.

David Regal, Burbank

..

To the editor: I voted for Proposition 1A because we were told the whole system would cost around $30 billion and it would take less than three hours to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Neither goal will come close to being achieved.

Since then, I have rarely voted for any bond issue because I no longer trust the politicians actually to tell us what we are voting for.

Andrew Bressler, Culver City