CA High Speed Rail

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

It seems you've missed the funding issue.... It is not like they are going to take the money today from the cash register.. they will float bonds and get matching from the Feds and use the fund that is set up to provide this kind of infrastructure...
More importantly, this kind of public work project puts people to work who pay tax and pay bills and buy stuff that stimulates the economy... sorta Demand Sided thinking..

The only issue is to get the voter approval then wait until paper is a viable vehicle again. California's current issue of 'running short' is not new.. it happens a lot and has in the past. Today's reality, however, makes funding via the paper float not viable as one might imagine.. No crisis in California that needs a hand out... but a Federal 'loan' is reasonable and proper under the circumstances given that the Feds are the responsible folks for the issues current in this country...

Why the hell should they get federal matching funds for an intrastate project?

From our perspective it is to repatriate the taxes Ca's citizens paid in Federal taxes to California's benefit. From the Federal perspective it is to incentives states to invest in certain kind of infrastructure.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I think it'd be a great thing...but the timing sucks. The state just can't afford it right now. I'll vote no...this time.

I agree. We have too many people working and don't need all those jobs.

Actually...NO. The state, especially the construction industry is in sore need of jobs, but how will we pay for this? With the FUBAR'd budget compromise Ah-Nold and the lazyslature just passed, we're already fucked...adding another $10 Billion to the problem isn't gonna work...This is yet another problem of Kahleeforneeya's "governing by proposition," it creates all sorts of new laws, without having any way to pay for them.

Do we NEED this HSR? NO, not really a NEED, but it would be a good thing, for the economy, for business and tourism travelers, maybe even for the environment, but the ability to PAY for isn't there.

I worked heavy construction for over 30 years and worked several years for one of the contractors who built the LA subway project and the BART extension into Daly City...(just not on those jobs) If he ends up with any part of the job, (and I expect he'll end up with a HUGE part of it) you can be guaranteed costs will nearly triple.
The same contractor got the job retrofitting the Richmond-San Rafel bridge in 2000. Final bid, about $485 million. Final construction cost, just under $1 billion.

Some aspects of the cost are fairly secure like the steel and the like. Maybe a Fixed Price contract on some aspects might be reasonable but none-the-less the 'trickle' from any major investment like this is massive.

The fact is your Government must SPEND SPEND SPEND to reverse Recession regardless of the debt incurred... to tighten the purse strings in a recession is insanity. Cut taxes and spend on as much as one can in the targeted areas.. build a bridge or a dam or anything so long as it is targeted and using American made products...

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

It seems you've missed the funding issue.... It is not like they are going to take the money today from the cash register.. they will float bonds and get matching from the Feds and use the fund that is set up to provide this kind of infrastructure...
More importantly, this kind of public work project puts people to work who pay tax and pay bills and buy stuff that stimulates the economy... sorta Demand Sided thinking..

The only issue is to get the voter approval then wait until paper is a viable vehicle again. California's current issue of 'running short' is not new.. it happens a lot and has in the past. Today's reality, however, makes funding via the paper float not viable as one might imagine.. No crisis in California that needs a hand out... but a Federal 'loan' is reasonable and proper under the circumstances given that the Feds are the responsible folks for the issues current in this country...

Why the hell should they get federal matching funds for an intrastate project?

It is in the federal governments best interests to help improve states infrastructure. The additional commerce, jobs, tourism etc.. generates additional tax revenue for both the state and the fed. Who takes more out of your paycheck state or fed?

Still not the right time to do it imo just making a point.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why the hell should they get federal matching funds for an intrastate project?

It is in the federal governments best interests to help improve states infrastructure. The additional commerce, jobs, tourism etc.. generates additional tax revenue for both the state and the fed. Who takes more out of your paycheck state or fed?

Still not the right time to do it imo just making a point.

Not when its a bridge to nowhere.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zoiks
I'm all for it. I think we should be looking towards the future and not the present. Its not going to get any cheaper and this 'needs' to be done. This will definitely help us build our states economy all the while curbing fossil fuels. I for one would definitely use the train and go to Socal more often if we had a different way other than air or car.
It should have been done yesterday.

I agree. There are flights between LAX and San Francisco practically every hour 24/7 and people drive this route constantly too. A high speed train makes sense IMO.

Having been to Spain and traveled between Madrid and Sevilla on their high speed train I can tell you that it is a fast and efficient way to travel. To drive from Madrid to Sevilla is about 300 miles and would take over 5 hours by car. Taking the train took slightly under 2 hours. The train was smooth, quiet, fast and efficient. A great way to travel.

 

[rpanic]

Voting no on this one for now. It took nearly half a century to build the 105 Century Freeway, It seems like it takes 5 years just for them to add or change a freeway exit.

If the price and time to complete could be guaranteed I would vote yes after we straighten out our budget.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ICRS
I would vote yes, but I am not sure.

I am positive it will cost atleast twice the amount they say it will and take twice as long to build. Also I am disapointed they didn't go with the MagLev technology. Its trains are safer, smoother, and much faster.

The bay bridge isn't the only thing with cost overrun. Look at the Benecia-Martinez Bridge. Started in 1995, it was suppose to be compeated by 2000 and cost only $200 million dolllars. The bridge ended up being compleated in 2007 and it cost over $1.3 billion dollars.

I see the same type of cost overrun here too.

It will cost more only because states don't hold contractractors to the price the stated. If states rewarded contractors that finished early and under budget, it would certainly help in the short term.

MagLev is a nice technology, but it would cost a hell of a lot more than a traditional railway. High speed rail lines are as simple as laying down track on a solid foundation with very shallow curves when needed. MagLev requires something more. Also, how is HSR not safe? They won't be running 2 trains in opposite directions on the same rails and there certainly won't be slower moving freight on those rails. Smooth ride can be handled by shocks in the cars. Speed - 180 - 300MPH is fast enough (depending on the trains used and the track ratings) for the corridor.

I wish they would fix up the tracks in the Northeast corridor. The Acela can only hit its max speed in a 15 mile stretch in RI. The rest of the way, the tracks are too degraded to go about 120 or the curves are too sharp for the train cars.

Heck, I wish there had been more of an investment in passenger rail between cities under 400 miles apart. It would make a great alternative to taking small, shuttle flights and cut down on the number of people driving the distance on the interstates/highways.

 

[freegeeks]

just ask the French to build it, proven track record

 

[JS80]

The number of armchair businessmen in this thread is astounding.

 

[imported_cambit69]

the reason why almost all construction projects drag on forever and go over budget is easy to conceptualize.

As a construction worker, it is in their best interest to do a shitty job and take forever. Because in their mind, the sooner they complete the job, then the sooner they'll be out of work and without pay.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

The feeling is mutual, BrownTown, and while I try to avoid using people's handles for mockery, yours does add one point to my side of the argument.

well im not sure what that is supposed to mean, but "Brown" is my last name, if you assumed some racist or otherwise perverted implication from that then its from your own messed up mind not mine.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: cambit69
the reason why almost all construction projects drag on forever and go over budget is easy to conceptualize.

As a construction worker, it is in their best interest to do a shitty job and take forever. Because in their mind, the sooner they complete the job, then the sooner they'll be out of work and without pay.

I can tell you've never worked construction...I've NEVER worked with anyone with that attitude. We all look forward to "putting ourselves out of work" by completing a job, preferrably under budget and under schedule.
The ones who really benefit from the fubar'd schedules and cost overruns are the contractors...the construction companies, many of whom either bit a job as time and materials, (cost plus) or have so many change orders, (either from the contracting authority or because of changes in conditions and signed off by the contracting authority) that the delays make them more money. I worked for a contractor who specialized in getting big jobs by bidding low, then making up more than the difference between his bid and at least the next highest, if not the very highest bid through the careful and liberal use of change orders. There's something wrong if he can't make double his bid...:roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

The feeling is mutual, BrownTown, and while I try to avoid using people's handles for mockery, yours does add one point to my side of the argument.

well im not sure what that is supposed to mean, but "Brown" is my last name, if you assumed some racist or otherwise perverted implication from that then its from your own messed up mind not mine.

Nothing to do with race, only with what I feel was your rude comment about California.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The ones who really benefit from the fubar'd schedules and cost overruns are the contractors...the construction companies, many of whom either bit a job as time and materials, (cost plus) or have so many change orders, (either from the contracting authority or because of changes in conditions and signed off by the contracting authority) that the delays make them more money. I worked for a contractor who specialized in getting big jobs by bidding low, then making up more than the difference between his bid and at least the next highest, if not the very highest bid through the careful and liberal use of change orders. There's something wrong if he can't make double his bid...:roll:

For all the politicians' talk about a favorite topic that they'll 'cut waste', I suspect real money could be saved if government got better at how they handle these contracts.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Craig234


For all the politicians' talk about a favorite topic that they'll 'cut waste', I suspect real money could be saved if government got better at how they handle these contracts.

Unfortunately, there usually are things that crop up that are unforseen, such as bad bedrock to work with, underground springs, problems buying right-of-way, etc. PLUS, the contracting authority (Cal-Trans and others) often fuck up the engineering estimates and change orders result. It's when a company COUNTS ON those change orders to make their money that IMO, is the problem.

 

[smashp]

Anyone that has ever been to Europe and traveled around on the HSR over there would vote Yes on this.

I mean the ICE network in Germany is incredible.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

So many people are FOR THIS because it sounds great. I agree that HSR is awesome, and that a thing like this would be great. But then people dont' realize that we're dumping $10 billion with this bond + interest blah blah when we have a huge financial crisis. Moreover, people KNOW that this is something that will run overbudget as usual like the Bay Bridge project. What's going to happen is we will need to raise more funding either through more bond measures or through the general budget. Does this mean taxes need to be raised? Probably. The less money we have to pay for other things, the more money will be needed. So either taxes will be raised or we're gonna cut education again and you will hear the liberals scream in pain when they clearly voted for some stupid spending project like this because they don't care about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Despite being expensive initially, it is an investment that will pay itself off in the future. All you have to do is keep the price of a ticket from LA to SF cheaper than the plane tickets and you will make all of the cost back. Even if the ride itself takes longer, the total trip is shorter because you don't have the airport hassle. There's no long security line, there's no reason to check in 2 hours early, etc. You buy your ticket and you get on the train.

Even if a train ticket to SF would cost 10% more than a plane ticket, I'd still take the train.

Ill take a guess by judging the way Amtrak and any other mass transit rail system works across the US. You dont make any money at it. It is subsidized for the difference. Usually very heavily.

I suggest that Amtrak and the others are just very poorly run.

Trains work everywhere else in the world. I haven't checked out the numbers, but I'd expect a rail company to be more profitable than an airline.

1) Electricity costs less than jet fuel
2) You don't need a huge fleet of trains (although each train is very expensive - but how much more expensive than a 747?)

The biggest cost probably comes from laying track. I don't really know anything about trains, so correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems odd that the trains in Europe are profitable yet the trains in America are not.

Rail tracks cost less than a 4 lane highways per mile. At least in Europe.

 

[idiotekniQues]

i hope this project gets off the ground. this country shoudl be ashamed of itself with how little real HSR we have.

i hope california passes this and this is the first step in a new initiative to build HSR in thsi country in a lot more places

 

[herkulease]

I already mailed in my ballot. I voted no. Screw it. It won't be 9.95 billion when its finished even if we started it now. The nut jobs will bitch and moan over how it looks. They bitched over the new Bay Bridge design. SFO international terminal was a billion dollars over budget. The only recent thing I can remember that came under budget and ahead of schedule was the 580 interchange a few months back that got melted/destoryed by that gas truck. Arnie I think had a bonus in there for them to get in done ahead of time.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: herkulease
I already mailed in my ballot. I voted no. Screw it. It won't be 9.95 billion when its finished even if we started it now. The nut jobs will bitch and moan over how it looks. They bitched over the new Bay Bridge design. SFO international terminal was a billion dollars over budget. The only recent thing I can remember that came under budget and ahead of schedule was the 580 interchange a few months back that got melted/destoryed by that gas truck. Arnie I think had a bonus in there for them to get in done ahead of time.

What is sad/funny is the guy who did the 580 just went bankrupt.

 

[K1052]

Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

 

[MagicConch]

CA can't even afford to pay their workers right now, let alone pay for this. I voted no on everything that would require new taxes or new bonds.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B