First, maintaining roads is expensive, and because of budget constraints, the state of California has in ensuring that the repairs needed to keep the roads in top condition arc made. Advocates of the high-speed rail proposal point out that when people who would have driven to their destination take the train instead, there will be less damage to the roads. The amount of maintenance needed on roads will therefore decrease.
In addition, traffic congestion on one of the major roads between San Francisco and Los Angeles is already at record levels, and transportation experts predict that it will double over the next 25 years; clearly, this problem must be addressed. In some areas of the East Coast where traffic congestion has been a problem, high-speed trains have helped relieve the congestion, and they have become the most popular way to travel between some Fast Coast cities. A high-speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles could become just as popular and could play a major role in helping to lower traffic congestion.
Finally, high-speed trains are one of the most environmentally friendly forms of transportation. Trains running at a high rate of speed are very fuel efficient: about five times more fuel efficient than cars and twice as efficient as regular trains. A high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles could eliminate many billions of pounds of harmful fuel emissions produced by car engines and regular trains every year.
Narrator: Now, listen to a part of a lecture, on the topic you've just read about.
Lecturer: The reading makes high speed rail seem like a great choice for California, but it's not. The benefits would be much less substantial than the readings suggest. First, it's true that the state of California would save some money on road maintenance, but, you have to compare that to the money California would have to spend on building the high speed rail.
To build a new system, the state of California might have to borrow one hundred billion dollars, which is equal to 75% of all the tax income the state collects in one year. Imagine, if you had to borrow an amount that's three quarters of your yearly income, it would be pretty hard to pay back the loan. California would put itself in a similarly difficult financial situation, even if it saved some money on road maintenance.
Second, trains only reduce traffic congestion on the roads if people find taking the train more convenient than driving. But, this largely depends on how convenient it is for people to access the train stations. In the east coast cities, people can get to the rail stations easily, thanks to extensive public transportation systems. But, convenient public transportation is often lacking in the urban areas on the west coast. If Californians cannot reach the stations easily, many will probably keep driving their cars instead of taking the trains and, the roads will stay congested.
Third, the environmental benefits. The problem is, that a new high speed track would be built for some of the route but not for the whole route. To make the best use of available resources, the California high speed trains would travel on already existing regular tracks for some parts of the route. But, since the regular tracks don't allow for high speed travel, the high speed trains will have to slow down for parts of the route. That slowing down, will make the new trains much less fuel efficient, and fuel emissions will not be reduced as much as the reading claims.
