CA High Speed Rail

[HappyPuppy]

The tooth fairy isn't going to pay off the bond, taxpayers will and that means higher taxes. We are already the/or one of the highest taxed states in the nation. Screw them.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: babylon5
When government officials tell you something will cost $X dollars, the real figures is triple at least + more.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
The tooth fairy isn't going to pay off the bond, taxpayers will and that means higher taxes. We are already the/or one of the highest taxed states in the nation. Screw them.

Ya, screw reducing pollution, creating jobs, and providing a lower cost option for travel.

Why don't you move to Mississippi? No danger of high speed rail for you.

 

[BarneyFife]

Conservatives want to drive pickup trucks on gravel roads. Screw infrastructure.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who wants to go to San Francisco?

People with good taste. Win-win, they are happy for you not to come, too.

FYI, San Francisco is the third most popular tourism city in the US (after Las Vegas and New York; the musch larger Los Angeles, even with Disneyland and Hollywood, is seventh).

The right's fear of San Francisco is amusing.

Its not fear, its more like disgust. You cant walk 5 feet in that city without tripping over an aging hippie who still thinks its 1968 or a homeless person.

Typical lie of the right. You can easily walk 20 feet without even encountering any, and you can easily avoid tripping by 1. Stepping over them and 2. Not taking LSD.

I guess one of the 'downsides' of being probably the nicest place in the nation is that it attracts everyone, and that there is human suffering.

Guess what, our solutions to the problem might be different, but only mine is going to help the needy much.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who wants to go to San Francisco?

People with good taste. Win-win, they are happy for you not to come, too.

FYI, San Francisco is the third most popular tourism city in the US (after Las Vegas and New York; the musch larger Los Angeles, even with Disneyland and Hollywood, is seventh).

The right's fear of San Francisco is amusing.

Its not fear, its more like disgust. You cant walk 5 feet in that city without tripping over an aging hippie who still thinks its 1968 or a homeless person.

Typical lie of the right. You can easily walk 20 feet without even encountering any, and you can easily avoid tripping by 1. Stepping over them and 2. Not taking LSD.

I guess one of the 'downsides' of being probably the nicest place in the nation is that it attracts everyone, and that there is human suffering.

Guess what, our solutions to the problem might be different, but only mine is going to help the needy much.

Now THAT explains alot about you.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Now THAT explains alot about you.

It is one of the nicest places on the planet. Santa Monica and Manhattan are the 2 spots. Sorry you couldn't make it. We all can't live this life. Back on topic. This is the only spending bill I am voting for. Extremely important to our future.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
It would be nice but I think it's just too expensive. Besides, I'd rather a high-speed rail to vegas instead. I plan on voting no.

From a business perspective, a train to the Bay is much more important than a train to Vegas.

I don't know, if you could hook up the casinos and Disneyland that would bring a lot of tourist dollars into SoCal . . .

"Hey mom and dad . . . send your tykes to the Magic Kingdom while you play the slots! It's only a short train ride away!"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Typical lie of the right. You can easily walk 20 feet without even encountering any, and you can easily avoid tripping by 1. Stepping over them and 2. Not taking LSD.

is that supposed to be a joke?

 

[Baked]

My ballot came in the mail yesterday. I'm voting no on this shit plan. Who the fuck came up w/ this money wasting plan should be hang and shot. Same thing w/ the 3rd street T line if you live in SF. WTF!

450K new jobs? Where did they get these numbers? From their ass?

You know that Bay Bridge east side project that was suppose to be finished last century? They're still working on it and have doubled the estimated project cost. GG!

Ps. If I wanna go down to LA, I'll take BART to SFO and fly SouthWest, thank you very fucking much.

 

[Theb]

Figure out how to pay for what you have now, then you can talk about buying something new.

 

[winnar111]

Isn't CA already bankrupt?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Linky

- 2.5 hours LA to SF
- 450,000 new jobs
- Reduce CO2 emissions
- Up to 117 million pasengers / year by 2030
- Funding comes from 3 parts (1/3 from bond, 1/3 from federal matching funds, 1/3 from state transportation funds)

Do you guys think this is any good?

I'm a fiscal conservative and I say no. Proposition 1A's $9.95 billion is ridiculous. This state is broke, and bond debt is just as bad. I'm not denying HSR isn't great, but to me we don't need it. We don't have problems going fro SF to LA. We have other problems to worry about $10 billion can go fix our roads because our problem is in getting around to work. Build SF or LA a real subway system instead.

Get the facts straight. It's a $9.95 billion bond, $950 million will go to current rail, $9 billion to the project.
No way in hell we will get the $31 billion remainder from federal nor state.
It will cost at LEAST double of the $40 billion estimated cost. $80 billion likely cost to finish.
No way in hell they will charge $50/ticket.
It will probably take 30 years to finish.
CO2 reduction won't make a dent. In the meantime they will be pumping CO2 building something that might not ever get finished.
Operating costs will be at LEAST $1 billion/year.

9.95 billion bond. I know my facts. 950 million in current rail won't even get BART to SJ.

I don't like to throw out figures like $80 billion or more than $50/ticket, but going off those exaggerated benefits, they're counting on the federal government to step in and provide 1/3 of the financing (another 10 billion at least). Do you honestly think we're gonna pass a bill that includes $10 billion in spending on HSR in CA? I'd like to say $40 billion is CONSERVATIVE and based on how this government has been running these projects run OVERBUDGET, POORLY MANAGED, and then you should EXPECT DELAYS.

CO2 reduction will be critical. I did read that it will cost a lot to build this so sure it reduces overall, but no one ever talks about how much it costs to in the initial investment. Same goes with all those green-tech hippies.

I think the same goes financially. The plan is to have it self sufficient by 2030. What does that mean? It means by 2030 ticket prices will cover operating costs. What are the ridership estimates? 65 million. Hah. Acela only runs 3 million people in the NORTHEAST CORRIDOR. But let's give these dreamers credit. Hit 65 million people and you will be financially self sufficient. What about from 2014 to 2030 when we're running off additional funding? What about the INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT. How long before your $40 billion pays back. Too long.

Originally posted by: Drakkon
Sounds good in theory but like most CA projects it would probably go WAY over budget and do very little in the long run.
And looking at the plans its a frankly low speed train in comparison to ones in Europe and Japan - so why invest in old technology?

220 mph is not slow. It's perfectly fine. I've watched the THSRC build the HSR in Taiwan and it was a terrible process. Delay after delay. Scandal after scandal. Switching from HSR like Japan then to Europe, then blah blah blah. Way too much money used, way too much time. Now it's running fine, but not after too many hiccups. I'm sure it will pay off in the future because flying in Taiwan is not like flying from SF to LA. Nor is driving from Taipei to Kaohsiung like driving from SF to LA. You can't drive 90mph in 5 hours to cover the distance like people do now. Anyway, I plan on voting no.

make the rules for spending the bond money more flexible if voters sign off on the bonds in November.

my guess is if it passes, it's another $9 billion sacramento has to squander and we don't even strike a nail on a foot of rail.

 

[sandorski]

California with its high population is a very good place to build such a thing. If you want decreased Pollution, decreased Fuel Consumption, and affordable Travel for the Masses, High Speed Rail makes a lot of sense.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Typical lie of the right. You can easily walk 20 feet without even encountering any, and you can easily avoid tripping by 1. Stepping over them and 2. Not taking LSD.

is that supposed to be a joke?

I thought he was calling OC guy on hyperbole..

If I had a tape measure and a high speed rail to San Francisco, I'm sure I could find 20 bum/hippie-free feet.

 

[LunarRay]

Ok... no train seems to be the vote here.... How about we invest in some bombs and drop them... they are rapid as they descend and except for a small bit of smog or dust or other pollution they are clean ... sorta. IF you ride on one... it will be a one way trip but you'll get a bang out of it.. well... there are some costs we need to add in... the Aircraft Carriers and planes and all that to transport them to the location and well.. we would create jobs just like the HSR.. The funds don't come from the States so that is a plus unless you count the people in the States...
I think Debt Financing LT assets is a wise adventure... bombs are good for urban renewal and all that but then you have to rebuild the place.. more money...
I vote Yes on the measure

 

[K1052]

The SF-SD corridor is one of the few places in the US it would make sense. People need to quit bitching that its subsidized by taxes, so are the fucking roads you drive on.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: K1052
The SF-SD corridor is one of the few places in the US it would make sense. People need to quit bitching that its subsidized by taxes, so are the fucking roads you drive on.

What roads? You mean the pothole riddled infrastructure that is falling apart all around us?
They've already taken all our infrastructure gas tax money and moved it to the general fund, leaving us with roads that are sometimes on par with 3rd world countries.
F' the HSR idea. A state that is on the brink of bankruptcy and can't even get a budget together doesn't need another $10 Billion flushed down the toilet. We're already the most taxed state in the union and all our crazy legislators want to do is raise our taxes.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: K1052
The SF-SD corridor is one of the few places in the US it would make sense. People need to quit bitching that its subsidized by taxes, so are the fucking roads you drive on.

What roads? You mean the pothole riddled infrastructure that is falling apart all around us?
They've already taken all our infrastructure gas tax money and moved it to the general fund, leaving us with roads that are sometimes on par with 3rd world countries.
F' the HSR idea. A state that is on the brink of bankruptcy and can't even get a budget together doesn't need another $10 Billion flushed down the toilet. We're already the most taxed state in the union and all our crazy legislators want to do is raise our taxes.

You're in CA? WTF do you know about potholes?

You should see ours here. They've been known to swallow entire cars.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: K1052
The SF-SD corridor is one of the few places in the US it would make sense. People need to quit bitching that its subsidized by taxes, so are the fucking roads you drive on.

What roads? You mean the pothole riddled infrastructure that is falling apart all around us?
They've already taken all our infrastructure gas tax money and moved it to the general fund, leaving us with roads that are sometimes on par with 3rd world countries.
F' the HSR idea. A state that is on the brink of bankruptcy and can't even get a budget together doesn't need another $10 Billion flushed down the toilet. We're already the most taxed state in the union and all our crazy legislators want to do is raise our taxes.

You're in CA? WTF do you know about potholes?

You should see ours here. They've been known to swallow entire cars.

Most of CA is really dry and should be good for pavements. The state is governed by crazy socialists.

I sent in my absentee ballot today and voted for it. Better to build a rail line than to spend money on roads.

 

[Darwin333]

We can't be out of money.... we still have checks.

Great idea but get back to me when either the Fed or the State can afford it.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need to fund trees with vines so conservatives can travel around.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need to fund trees with vines so conservatives can travel around.

Sounds like an environmentally friendly way to get around. I would think you'd want this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need to fund trees with vines so conservatives can travel around.

Sounds like an environmentally friendly way to get around. I would think you'd want this.

Fine if the vines are greased.

 

[Ballatician]

Why are so many people afraid of San Francisco? It's hilarious.