California Gold Rush Research Paper

Looking at the California high speed rail project truly has shocked the public and makes them wonder if this is a great plan for California’s environment. “The current plan will connect San Francisco with Los Angeles cutting a six hour car ride down to two hours and forty minutes”(Souza, 2011). The train running through Kings County will take out many dairies and cut even more in half. Making these cuts will be hard for dairymen to get to their crops or feed their animals. Building the rail is a bad idea due to the fact; money will be taken from schools, it will devastate the future of California’s agriculture industry,

High speed rail transportation has become an important issue in California that could potentially help our current transportation system and other environmental issues that need to be dealt with. This is an important issue to look into because currently our transportation system could be a lot more efficient using high speed rail instead of just the current car and air system that we have right now. Because of this there are a lot of potential benefits from the economic side of putting a high speed rail system in California from saving time, money, and fast efficient mobility throughout the state. These benefits also include a stimulus towards the state’s economy in forms of employment and income growth due towards construction and implementation even if these aren't permanent jobs. Some environmental benefits of a high speed transportation is a decrease in pollution, using less nonrenewable resources such as oil, and decreasing the amount of other modes of transportation that currently need to be used. It is controversial though because of the cost of implementing such high speed transportation, versus the current transportation system that we already have. These increasing costs of implementing the have current plan for high speed rail have caused great concern because of costs such high possible costs needed to implement compared to its benefits. My problem that I have come up with is it cost effective and beneficial for the state of

California is the highest populated state in the USA spanning to be third-largest in area. It has 160,000 square miles of area and more than 50,000 miles of roads and conventional rail networks in addition to over 100 airports. This shows that the state is undoubtedly very well developed. However, the available current transportation systems are not able to satisfy the demands of the current population and the forecasted future demographics. The congestion in the transportation system is causing huge burden to the Californians and the government in terms of time and money.

How should the roads be funded, should it be a tax on gas like it is currently or should it be run like a toll

Pasadena mayor, Terry Tornek, is planning to put a repeal of Measure A on the November ballot. (Measure A is the voter-approved 2001 measure supporting the completion of the 710 Freeway). By doing so, he feels that the freeway extension project would be essentially taken out of the game and Caltrans might then decide to sell the land and make the Pasadena architect’s vision of a new neighborhood in the freeway gap a

As the owner and operator of the State Highway System (SHS), it is our responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed development may impact our facilities. As the responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, it is also our responsibility to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project. Although the project is under the jurisdiction

MAP-21 provides an array of provisions designed to increase innovation and improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the planning, design, engineering, construction and financing of transportation projects. Building on FHWA’s “Every Day Counts” initiative, MAP-21 changes will speed up the project delivery process, saving time and money for individuals and businesses, and yielding broad benefits nationwide. Some MAP-21 provisions are designed to improve efficiency in project delivery, broadening the ability for States to acquire or preserve right-of-way for a transportation facility prior to completion of the review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), providing for a demonstration program to streamline the relocation process by permitting a lump sum payment for the acquisition and relocation if elected by the displaced person, enhancing contracting efficiencies, and encouraging the use of innovative technologies and practices.

The thousands of miles of highways, electric lines, gas pipes, and water lines along with the thousands of bridges take billions of dollars to maintain every year. In a ten year span in the 1980’s, estimates to rebuild the areas of our nation’s infrastructure that were in disrepair

Whether you love cars or not, everyone is using public transportation. In Western Europe and Canada, public transportation is a trend compared to the United States. To increase ridership in the California, we would need the support from our government. Unfortunately, the United States government cannot provide significant aid to transit agencies due to the lack of support from congress. In addition, California would not be able to imitate strategies like parking restrictions, increase in cost of automobile use, and transit-oriented site design in land use zoning. Parking restrictions can go so far as implementing them around areas with high traffic, but not throughout the entire city. It would help transit agencies if we added more parking restrictions, but I am sure some cities will oppose of this idea. Also, transit managers do not have a voice in increasing the cost of automobile usage because then car dealers and manufactures would lose profit or go out of business. It would be extremely hard for congress to vote on a bill that goes against automobile since the majority of the Californian drives personal vehicles. Lastly, land use and transportation planning would be up to the government. Increasing transit is difficult in California if we do not have the support from the government. If the government supported the increase of funding for public

Funding transportation infrastructure that supports petroleum requires leveraging funding from the Federal government as the primary revenue source due to its geographic dispersal across the nation. A multi-tiered approach must be taken to ensure that infrastructure is properly identified and prioritized for funding; the Federal government needs to set the foundation for infrastructure investment through tax revenues, tax incentives, and policy, while incorporating expertise from State, Local, and private sector partnerships.

Highways are extremely important to a nations development in economical way. The high quality road networks construction directly leads to an increase in the nation 's economy and its output by reducing the factors. For example, journey, time and costs. Such advantages can make the nation more economically attractive. According to Roger L. Brockenbrough(2009, p.2) Highway projects can possibly bring about huge social, environmental, and financial impacts and, as an outcome, are the subject of a broad range of environmental regulation. According to Chin, A.T.H. (2006, p.1-1), most highway programs depend on “pay-as-you go”, i.e., paying for construction, maintenance and administration as money got to be accessible from client charges. In many countries, even in great times incomes may not be sufficient. Increased public demand for transportation services continue to strain existing highway and drained financial resources.

In 2015, there has been a proposal to increase county property tax by 40%, fortunately it was approved for 32% instead (4). According to a nonpartisan research organization and policy institute in Pennsylvania, 25% of revenue is spent on K-12 Education, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program 16%, Higher Education 13%, Transportation 5%, Public Assistance 1%, Corrections 4% and all others 35% (1). If 35% of tax collected goes under other, taxpayers have a right to know the breakdown. Transportation 5%, should be considered one of residents’ highest priority, with road repairs falling

Transportation investment increased significantly with highway systems created during the 1940’s and the impressive interstate system program of the 1950’s. Massively subsidized by the federal government, these surface initiatives connected States from coast-to-coast, but concurrently made suburban living feasible, while eroding inner-city investment (Shoup & Lang, 2011). Later, when the streetcar, rail, and bus systems within cities began to falter and fade, President Kennedy suggested federal investment in urban transportation. However, it wasn’t until President Johnson signed the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 that government funding for mass transit and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration were established (Federal Transit Administration [FTA], n.d.).

Diverting investment resources away from replacing infrastructure and increasing the costs of oil-based materials like asphalt

Complicating TB&T’s asset invest needs is the fact that the once dependable fuel tax is no longer producing revenues at the rate required to maintain transportation infrastructure. According to the Wall Street Journal, improved fuel economy and the rise of hybrid and electric vehicles means that additional driving won 't match higher gasoline sales. Furthermore, how much people pay for the roads won 't necessarily correspond to how much they use them. Traditionally, the United States has met increased demand by building new facilities that expand capacity, but this is no longer feasible for a variety of reasons. The time to move through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is often extensive, land acquisition may no longer be possible, and now fuel tax revenues may be insufficient to pay for new investments in infrastructure. As a result, transportation agencies and policymakers must explore new