Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (37) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I’m assuming it’s our governors “train to nowhere,” the absolutely biggest boondoggle California has come up with for years. Already it is costing millions in interest payments on bonds that will barely launch construction on this high speed rail project that Californian’s don’t want and likely wont use.
    Our governor Moonbeam is obsessed with this project, in spite of escalating cost estimates, lawsuits, problems with environmentalists etc.

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Libs Gone Wild in Cali. The highest taxes in the nation and yet the Dems who run things there still say they need more for their corrupt “projects”.

  3. Ottodesu

    Ottodesu said, over 3 years ago

    Why do Americans hate trains so much? Because they save the public money and minimise pollution?
    It seems like a big proportion of you folks hate anything that has to be provided by a central authority, even if it is good for one and all.
    I gave up my car a few years ago because the local train service is all I need, seven days a week. I hire a car on holidays.
    I laugh at fuel prices and read on the way to work or listen to podcasts without distraction.
    (OK, I admit the Porsche 928 was nice before the divorce …)

  4. alcors3

    alcors3 said, over 3 years ago

    It is a real pity that after WW2 it was decided that paving the country, making the railroads help pay for it and then regulating them into bankruptcy was the way to go. Maybe we should make all highways toll roads and make the airlines pay for terminals and ground crews. High speed rail in this country probably will never work but if the playing field was more level we could develop better commuter and distance rail systems.

  5. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, over 3 years ago

    In high density population, trains are supreme. No contest. Putting trains were population is going to become dense is what effective planning is all about. Nobody wants a boondoggle, folks. A lot of people would like to live in California, amongst the moonbeams.

  6. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 3 years ago


    It now takes just abut 3 hours to travel by air from Los Angeles to Sacramento or San Fransisco (and that would be if you are very quick, and even very lucky). The actual air travel time is less than 1 hour, but just getting to an airport, parking, getting through security, and then getting on the plane itself takes about i hour each side of the trip.

    High speed rail could be easily competitive with this travel time. Some areas of such a system would not be able to achieve one hundred mph as the trains would have to go though mountain territory, but the flat sections though such areas as Antelope and the Central Valleys could easily achieve 150+ mph.

    Once upon a time California had one of the finest passenger train travel systems not only in the US itself, but even in the world in the magnificent Southern Pacific Daylight system.
    I would like to think that we can match the technology of at least the 1930’s now.

    And I think we could have that again. I must admit however, that I do not understand why the estimates of building such a high speed rail system are so very high. The flat sections should actually be less in cost than the huge freeway system was to build, and the mountain sections are actually far less in miles than the flat sections would be.

    From the EuRail site: “The high-speed trains used in France are known as TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse = high speed train). With 149 destinations and a speed of up to 320 km/h (200 mph), the TGV is the fastest way to visit the various regions of France.”

    So the French, which many ultra conservatives here seem to think are so backwards have such a system. And we in the US can not match the French (or most other European Rail Systems for that matter).

    Are we in the US really the ones that are so very backwards then? The French can do this, and we can not?

    We can build a far larger freeway across flat land for some $20 million per mile. So, the far less rail system should not even cost that much. The flat sections should run just about $7 billion. 350 miles times $20 million = $7 billion. And the 50 or so miles of mountainous territory should cost no more than the total of the flat sections. So the total should be built for about $15 billion, and that would be over about 5 years, so the per year cost should be no more than $3 billion per year.

    Yet we hear estimates as high as $100 billion. So, just who is padding these estimates by up to some 6 times as much as the actual cost should be?

    The regular railroads that only want to move mass goods? The highway people? Politicians that want to pad anything coming through their districts? Or, the airlines that would lose business?

    I do not know, but somebody sure wants to pad the numbers!!

  7. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, over 3 years ago

    Liberal progress. Trains and wind mills.

  8. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, over 3 years ago

    TSA will handle the security so get to the station at least an hour before departure so they can search and scan.

  9. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 3 years ago

    That’s too bad the trucking industry is keeping the transportation of people back.
    How much of the cost is the acquisition of the land needed to build the rails & stations? Won’t the cost rise as the planners run into the typical NIMBYs and narrow minded?

  10. ODon

    ODon said, over 3 years ago

    Well it appears many of you want to continue using tax money to build more and bigger highways as that form of government intrusion is okay. High speed rail a few parking lots, a few buses and you can have a great system like Santa Fe/Albuquerque does. People fought it and now embrace its utility.

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago


    Oh yeah, that’s the money from Barry that California snagged when Gov. Rick said…hmmmm…this project will just end up costing local taxpayers a bundle……and said no.

    Not that I don’t like the idea of light rail, it makes a BUNCH of money for the railroad and I AM a retired railroad guy with a vested interest in employing more railroad workers so my pension keeps getting paid.

    Kind of like being between a rock and a hard place. But still, better you than me with the problem.

  12. Dypak

    Dypak GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    The only way to grow a proper city, it takes money, dont’cha know.

  13. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Even in super liberal California, over 60% of the people are now against this huge waste of money. The Governments estimates are over 80 Bill. and we know what happens with government estimates once they become reality.

    What’s also an example of Big Gov gone wild is that Gov Brown just begged and pleaded with the citizens to raise their already high taxes even more or else the whole education system would collapse!

    Yet they want to build a bullet train through the least populated parts of the state, meanwhile their freeways in the cities are some of the worst in the world.

    Perfect example of what happens when Democrats have absolute power with no checks and balances.

  14. Jim Guess

    Jim Guess said, over 3 years ago

    Well, rvernon, are YOU going to pay for the high speed rail? And, after YOU pay for it, are YOU going to ride it?

    Didn’t you notice? It goes from nowhere to nowhere!

    Sigh …

  15. Jim Guess

    Jim Guess said, over 3 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    If you are so right, then why hasn’t some entrepreneur built the high speed rail instead of the government?
    Have you not noticed? The government has to subsidize Amtrack and it STILL runs in the red!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (22).