CA High Speed Rail

[JS80]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax increase causes revenues to drop.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax increase causes revenues to drop.

It's already projected to compared to 2007 tax revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...layafact.cfm?Docid=205

We obtained 18.8% of GDP revenue in 2007 compared to Obama's planned 18.2%.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax increase causes revenues to drop.

Well... Obama said the tax relief would be revenue neutral. If I actually had in my hand the analysis underlying all this I could develop something that I could buy off on or condem... I just can't find it. ... Perhaps it is not published in a form or detail that lends to that kind of analysis... which is par for the course..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax increase causes revenues to drop.

It's already projected to compared to 2007 tax revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...layafact.cfm?Docid=205

We obtained 18.8% of GDP revenue in 2007 compared to Obama's planned 18.2%.

The estimates for '08 and out assume some facts not in evidence me thinks.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax increase causes revenues to drop.

It's already projected to compared to 2007 tax revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...layafact.cfm?Docid=205

We obtained 18.8% of GDP revenue in 2007 compared to Obama's planned 18.2%.

The estimates for '08 and out assume some facts not in evidence me thinks.

Maybe, maybe not. We do have historical facts from 2006-2007, which show that in these 2 years, despite the so called Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, we collected more tax than in the 50's thru 70s when statutory rates were in the 70s.

Obama's 18.2% figure might not include facts in evidence either.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%

I wouldn't be surprised if the tax increase causes revenues to drop.

It's already projected to compared to 2007 tax revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...layafact.cfm?Docid=205

We obtained 18.8% of GDP revenue in 2007 compared to Obama's planned 18.2%.

The estimates for '08 and out assume some facts not in evidence me thinks.

Maybe, maybe not. We do have historical facts from 2006-2007, which show that in these 2 years, despite the so called Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, we collected more tax than in the 50's thru 70s when statutory rates were in the 70s.

Obama's 18.2% figure might not include facts in evidence either.

I doubt they do... In fact, I doubt 10 Forensic Accountants would agree on what the numbers are or even find them nor would 10 Economists agree on the methods used for anything...
IOW, I don't agree with either side on the numbers they quote or use. The reality of it all is it ain't real (imo).

 

[Moonbeam]

We can't afford shoes so it will not be good to walk places. I'm voting for the train.

The idiots where I live didn't want Bart cause it would have been a 1/4 % sales tax and they were all driving Cadillacs like me and now are they ever sorry. Penny wise and pound foolish, people are.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

This has got to be the stupidest idea ever. Here's three better ways to spend the money, all involving rail:

1. Expand BART &/or expand LA light rail, especially through Ventura and Orange counties.
2. Massive expansion of dedicated freight rails in Los Angeles to get goods out of the ports and out of the valley so SoCal freeways aren't burdened with the massive trucking clusterfuck on their highways. (This one gets my vote.) This should also be almost entirely paid for by the federal government since CA suffers the problem but the whole country benefits, but I know that isn't realistic to expect.
3. High speed rail to Vegas. I realize from a business perspective SF/LA is more important, but realistically LA/Vegas has much worse traffic problems and since it's now an interstate rail and benefiting the Nevada economy so heavily you should hopefully be able to alleviate a substantial portion of the cost California would bare.

Edit:
4. Finish the goddamn Oakland Bay Bridge. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[LunarRay]

Well... the only issue on the ballot is the HSR as it is articulated which demands an up or down vote. It has been determined that the financial impact has merit. Sure, there exist other ideas on how to improve the infrastructure but this seems to be all encompassing. Local rapid transit 'fixes' are in order and on the docket in some form or another and awaiting funding techniques. To get the cars off the highways in LA and environs IS a biggie. Like the Toaster (Coaster) and Trolly System in San Diego whose ridership has been great, I'd like to see similar type systems elsewhere. Problem is getting the land to lay the track.. My look see indicates that the track in many areas of LA does not accommodate the travel needs of the citizens. Even finding a way to move folks to new areas near their jobs is cost effective and environmentally friendly.

The job impact of this bond issue here and elsewhere is also a concern. I voted for it on my mail in ballot and tend to support any issue that both improves the environment and has a good chance to employ Californians...

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

They do in many parts of the world, even earning high profits in some regions. How about telling us why it can't work here?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I cant disagree Amtrak is poorly run. But it still costs the govt to keep it afloat. The others are usually city or state run and the cost of the ticket is well below the cost of the seat. The reasoning by the brilliant operators(politicians) is if the ticket cost what it truely costs then people wouldnt ride the train. Another example of govt trying to create a market that isnt there.

Holy double negatives batman (triple before the typo correction!).

There are some regions where your statement would seem absurd, like China and Japan.

For instance, the Japanese railway hasn't been publicly owned since the 80s. To my knowledge, they are not subsidized at all.

While it is true that many European rail systems are subsidized with gas taxes, I'd wager that at least the German lines are popular enough to be profitable on their own even without subsidies. I'd suggesting that they're not 'creating a market that isn't there' but are simply artificially decreasing prices. Unfortunately, there's no way to know without actually removing those subsidies. As such, further discussion on this is just speculation.

There will always be a demand for rail travel due to its convenience, and potentially its speed (if we ever bother to build HSR lines). I want a HSR line in California, even if it costs the same as a plane ticket (or even slightly more, which it shouldn't). The train CAN be profitable, but the government can't step and subsidize the tickets or else rampant inefficiency will take over. It is the subsidy that makes Amtrak unprofitable; if you start letting them drift toward the drain, they'll have to get their shit together.

 

[vailr]

With the price of gold being around $900/ounce, why not use newly mined & refined California gold to help pay for whatever new railroad lines are needed? I'm sure that any foreign-based high-speed railroad designers/construction engineers would be glad to accept gold, in payment for their expertise.
Maybe Governor Arnold could name a new "Railroad Czar" to speed along the land acquisition & eminent domain part of the HSR construction process. With "immunities from judicial review" similar to what passed through Congress recently, concerning Paulson's "Wall Street bailout".

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: vailr
With the price of gold being around $900/ounce, why not use newly mined & refined California gold to help pay for whatever new railroad lines are needed? I'm sure that any foreign-based high-speed railroad designers/construction engineers would be glad to accept gold, in payment for their expertise.
Maybe Governor Arnold could name a new "Railroad Czar" to speed along the land acquisition & eminent domain part of the HSR construction process. With "immunities from judicial review" similar to what passed through Congress recently, concerning Paulson's "Wall Street bailout".

:roll:

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Turkish

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

as land acquisition cost is probably the largest portion, that would make sense. though i would also imagine that once the land is purchased putting in an asphalt roadway is cheaper than putting in an electrified high speed rail system.

The thing is expanding highways is a huge cost. You have to work around traffic and then work at night and deal with highway closures, etc. In my 4 years at Berkeley I've noticed the I-880 being transformed quite a bit and while it's changed, it's not a huge change yet, but I know it's probably millions and millions.

The unfortunate truth is we NEED highways and unless we get a metro system like in Hong Kong or Japan or NYC, we're not going to see a decrease in highway traffic.

People act like this HSR is going to be the magic pill. It requires BART and Metrolink to actually expand by a great amount and even then these transportation methods will still be nowhere near a true subway like say in Hong Kong. I'm almost certain $40 billion can make BART run like a true subway and it would do wonders to the Bay Area. It's probably enough to get LA a subway too but apparently the more important thing is to get HSR running because SF and LA are totally congested and flying is so bad no one wants to do it, and the 6 hour drive at 90+mph like most people go on I-5 is just so unbearable. Seriously. Now the proponents are pushing HSR like it's a Public Works project. So now they're making it seem that the construction of it will benefit us even though the real deal is not worth $40 billion because it will screw us over in terms of finances. Well why don't we spend $40 billion on something MORE worth it then.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd
This has got to be the stupidest idea ever. Here's three better ways to spend the money, all involving rail:

1. Expand BART &/or expand LA light rail, especially through Ventura and Orange counties.
2. Massive expansion of dedicated freight rails in Los Angeles to get goods out of the ports and out of the valley so SoCal freeways aren't burdened with the massive trucking clusterfuck on their highways. (This one gets my vote.) This should also be almost entirely paid for by the federal government since CA suffers the problem but the whole country benefits, but I know that isn't realistic to expect.
3. High speed rail to Vegas. I realize from a business perspective SF/LA is more important, but realistically LA/Vegas has much worse traffic problems and since it's now an interstate rail and benefiting the Nevada economy so heavily you should hopefully be able to alleviate a substantial portion of the cost California would bare.

Edit:
4. Finish the goddamn Oakland Bay Bridge. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

People in Northern California won't vote for a High Speed rail to Las Vegas, and why should we. It won't cut my time driving to Las Vegas down.

Also question if LA/Vegas has much worst traffic problems. Traffic can be terrible on I5 and CA99.

 

[her209]

Looking good

 

[OokiiNeko]

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.

Last I read, the CalTrans/Amtrak commuter train partnership in the bay area was doing very well. Anyone here actually ride it?

No metropolitan mass transit system in the world is profitable through fare collection. Some do better than others but at the end of they day they are subsidized through tax revenue. Then again so are the cars we drive and the roads we drive on.

The Keihen Kyuko company in Tokyo disagrees with you. So do alot of other private railways in Japan. This guy also disagrees:
Tama

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko

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.

Last I read, the CalTrans/Amtrak commuter train partnership in the bay area was doing very well. Anyone here actually ride it?

No metropolitan mass transit system in the world is profitable through fare collection. Some do better than others but at the end of they day they are subsidized through tax revenue. Then again so are the cars we drive and the roads we drive on.

The Keihen Kyuko company in Tokyo disagrees with you. So do alot of other private railways in Japan. This guy also disagrees:
Tama

I ride Caltrans daily. It's pretty good and the trains are full everyday.

 

[novasatori]

This is pretty sweet, glad it passed.

Improving infrastructure is always a good investment imo.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: novasatori
This is pretty sweet, glad it passed.

Improving infrastructure is always a good investment imo.

Im still hoping its a one-way rail.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: novasatori
This is pretty sweet, glad it passed.

Improving infrastructure is always a good investment imo.

Im still hoping its a one-way rail.

Me too, we can send all of our criminals and homeless to LA, and they can't send Orange County know-nothings up here.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: novasatori
This is pretty sweet, glad it passed.

Improving infrastructure is always a good investment imo.

Im still hoping its a one-way rail.

Me too, we can send all of our criminals and homeless to LA, and they can't send Orange County know-nothings up here.

No you guys LOVE the homeless up there. Dont act like you want them to leave!

Anyway I was going to use the rail to make a trip up there, but then you guys voted down prostitution. *sigh*

 

[Farang]

I hope it ends up being cheap to run, air fares aren't that bad from LAX - SFO

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: novasatori
This is pretty sweet, glad it passed.

Improving infrastructure is always a good investment imo.

Im still hoping its a one-way rail.

Me too, we can send all of our criminals and homeless to LA, and they can't send Orange County know-nothings up here.

No you guys LOVE the homeless up there. Dont act like you want them to leave!

Anyway I was going to use the rail to make a trip up there, but then you guys voted down prostitution. *sigh*

Maybe the prostitution measure would have more of a chance in OC- If it were gay prostitution?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: novasatori
This is pretty sweet, glad it passed.

Improving infrastructure is always a good investment imo.

Im still hoping its a one-way rail.

Me too, we can send all of our criminals and homeless to LA, and they can't send Orange County know-nothings up here.

No you guys LOVE the homeless up there. Dont act like you want them to leave!

Anyway I was going to use the rail to make a trip up there, but then you guys voted down prostitution. *sigh*

Maybe the prostitution measure would have more of a chance in OC- If it were gay prostitution?

Someone from San Francisco making a gay comment about somewhere else?

I think San Diego ranks right up there with you, but thats not where I live.