Imagine you need to travel from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles in a hurry. Which mode of transport would you choose? You could travel by plane, but you would likely have to deal with the hassle of purchasing tickets, traffic delays to and from the airport, and numerous delays related to security checks inside the airport. You could travel by car, but that would mean eight hours spent sitting behind the wheel staring at miles and miles of asphalt. You could choose a more scenic route and "ride the tracks," but if you took Amtrak's coastal route, for example, your trip would take nearly twelve hours. With Amtrak's domestic route, which requires transferring to a bus connection in Bakersfield, your trip would take about nine hours (Mahtesian, 27). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Dilemmas like this could soon be resolved if the California Intercity High-Speed ​​Rail Commission gets its wish. The commission, created in 1993 by a state executive order, hopes to introduce a new generation of super trains that will take travelers to and from the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area. The trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles would be drastically reduced to just two or three hours. Currently, high-speed rail systems exist in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Sweden, among others. In the United States, however, the closest thing we have is the Amtrak Metroliner, which runs between Washington and New York and reaches a top speed of about 130 miles per hour (Ross, 7). With highways originally designed to transport We have entered the twenty-first century already at capacity, our country is in desperate need of an alternative form of transportation. Traffic congestion in areas near our country's airports, as well as air and noise pollution, and recent safety concerns demonstrate that air travel is far from an ideal means of transportation. Furthermore, the limited space for road construction, the alarming number of road fatalities and the continuing damage to the environment further highlight the importance of abandoning cars as the main sources of transport. The California Intercity High Speed ​​Rail Commission's proposed high-speed rail system would employ innovative technology to create a superior form of transportation that would help usher in a new millennium. The Commission's proposed high-speed rail system uses magnetic levitation technology, and is consequently often called "maglev". Maglev trains use two different magnetic systems. The ninety-ton train is levitated six inches above the monorail guide. The other magnetic system then pushes the system forward. Most of this propulsion system is located in the same rail as the monorail, reducing the weight of the train. In his article published in the New Hampshire News, Larry Thompson compares the proposed maglev trains to our nations current fastest train, the Metroliner. He writes, “The Maglev is to the Amtrak Metroliner what a Porsche is to a Pinto” (Hampshire, 70). The California Intercity High Speed ​​​​​​Rail Commission has designed much of its work around four separate studies, which are currently underway. One study involved selecting the best route from the Bay Area to Los Angeles among three leading candidates: Interstate 5, Route 99, and Highway 101. Early results suggest that a higher level of ridership would be achieved if Route 99 were used (Hale ,3). Another study analyzes the potential number of passengers based on travel modes, frequency of trips, quality of service and price charged to the passenger. The other two studies focus on the impact the system would have on job opportunities, the effects on growth, land use issues related to the high-speed rail system, and various methods of financing the high-speed rail system .project. In the past, the United States has been extremely reluctant to embrace the idea of ​​high-speed rail. A likely cause of this reluctance was the state of Texas's failed attempts to implement a network known as the Supertrain. These plans failed when a Franco-American partnership announced that it simply could not raise the $170 million needed to start the project by the December 1993 deadline (Mahtesian, 25). Since then, the question of who will pay for these projects has long been the holding back for proposed high-speed rail systems. In Ohio, for example, voters in 1982 rejected a one-cent sales tax increase that would have helped fund a ten-billion-dollar system connecting most of the state's most densely populated cities. Part of this lack of public interest is due to the fact that Americans simply don't feel the need to replace their beloved automobiles. Former Ohio High-Speed ​​Rail Authority Chairs Robert Boggs articulates this fact by saying, “The view of many Americans is that rail is an obsolete service that is no longer needed…We have had difficulty convincing the public of the need for another alternative in public transportation" (Mahtesian, 27). Other detractors of high-speed rail systems include various airlines and rural communities. In Texas, for example, Southwest Airlines lobbied vehemently against the Supertrain because they believed the rail system would detract from their home market. Additionally, many of Texas' more rural communities have said they are adamantly opposed to the idea of ​​high-speed trains barreling through the countryside. On the other hand, numerous expected benefits will arise from the implementation of high-speed rail systems in California and elsewhere. of the United States far outweigh the system's upfront costs and the public's reluctance to part with the familiar. For example, a 1992 study by the New York State Thruway Authority estimated that an intrastate maglev system would carry approximately five million passengers per year and reduce emissions and fuel consumption by an amount equivalent to 300 million automobile miles per year (Ross, 8). . Furthermore, maglev systems are almost twice as fast as conventional trains; They can reach speeds close to those of a jet plane, without the danger associated with taking off and landing. Additionally, Meglev trains contain no moving parts, making wear almost negligible. Unlike fast passenger trains in other countries, the California Commission's proposed rail system would carry freight in addition to passengers. Transportation experts say that by essentially cutting transportation times for various goods in half, a maglev system could significantly change a state's "economic dynamics" (Ross, 10). Another huge benefit of a high-speed rail system is that the systems riders would be able to use their time in transit more efficiently. California planners say passengers would enjoy airline-style food service and comfortable seating together.