What four points should I discuss in a debate about the California HighSpeed Rail?

[condan]

I am having a debate in class about this subject and I'm going first. I need to have 4 points on the topic.

First point (The ILL/HARM): Which is why we need one

Second point (BLAME/INHERENCY): Why it's not solved yet

Third point (Cure/Plan): Actions that should take place

Fourth point (Benefits): Self explanatory, basically how it will benefit us

I have done a lot of research already, just need a jump start. Thanks!!

[dalon]

1. It's a good idea
2. California can't afford it
3. The federal government should not pay for it
4. California can't afford it.

[hewlett]

To discuss the first point, show how the planned route is nonsensical.

Second, show how poorly it has been planned, the blatant deception / failure of the cost estimates.

Third, actions to take place : correct the underlying problem.

Benefits? Cost over runs, subsidized ridership (fares <<costs per ride), failure of performance (speed<<projected).

BOONDOGGLE.

[siwili]

No one will ride it.

It will cost billions.

No one will ride it.

California cannot afford it.

No one will ride it.

The feds can't afford it,

And no one will ride it.

EDIT I'm not one in 36 million who won't ride it, I am someone who has actually looked at usage of such systems. For years, California has been flushing money down the mass transit rat hole. You claimed to have done research, surely taht research shows that NOBODY rides the idiotic mass transit that this state has been building, with the exception of BART.

[achimelech51]

No one will ride it.

It will cost billions.

No one will ride it.

California cannot afford it.

No one will ride it.

The feds can't afford it,

And no one will ride it.

EDIT I'm not one in 36 million who won't ride it, I am someone who has actually looked at usage of such systems. For years, California has been flushing money down the mass transit rat hole. You claimed to have done research, surely taht research shows that NOBODY rides the idiotic mass transit that this state has been building, with the exception of BART.

That's a hard one.. because high speed rail really doesn't make any sense in the US. For that matter, it's not really working that well in other countries whose cities are laid out in a way that fits it better.

To be more energy efficient than a car the trains need to fill about every seat, every time they move. And that simply isn't going to happen.

They're too slow for long distance trips ( for example the fastest train is about 1/4th as fast as a 747 ) and too inconvenient for short distance trips. There is some potential for medium length runs.. but again there's the need to fill every seat for them to be sustainable.

They are horribly expensive to build and maintain. They will be a huge financial loss and very likely will end up being worse for the environment than cars.

[hagaleah]

1. The cost is ridiculous.
2. Nobody will use it.
3. It is really just a program to launder taxpayer money into political campaign contributions.
4. Pay attention to the first three points.