The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

[ProfJohn]

people simply don't understand, the Thalys/Eurostar linking together Cologne / Amsterdam / Brussel / Paris / London has created a whole new dynamic. It was first used in 1996 and is still growing at a rate of 15% to 20% year. A system like that in CA would make it possible to commute from much further away.

I get your logic and it makes sense.

But they are building their system for half the cost of the one we want to build.

Maybe they should build LA to San Diego and see what happens.

Or a TRUE high speed rail from NYC to Boston and see what happens.
That system would connect a metro with 8 million people with one with 4 million and it would connect the two most important east coast cities together. If they can make that work then they can expand from there.

Part of the problem is that Europe has a history of riding trains, we have a history of driving cars. If we are going to try this then build a true high speed system in the north east and see if it works. And when I say true I mean exactly like everyone else does with dedicated train rails and cars etc etc. Not the crappy hybrid system we have now.

BTW La to San Fran is 380 miles and connects 16 million people.

Paris to London is shorter and connects 26 million people.

 

[ProfJohn]

Overall, CA can afford to have a 'worse business climate' or what not because it's a very desirable area to live.

Which explains why they have the second highest unemployment rate in the country?

California USED to be an awesome place. And then they started to vote themselves benefits payed for with other peoples money (taxes) and it went to hell.

 

[ProfJohn]

Does this guy have a job? I went to sleep last night, he's posting. I just come back from work and he's still posting. I bet I pay more taxes in a month than this loser has in the past 10 years.

This is my job... at least that is what they tell me

 

[ch33kym0use]

Hey here's an idea, got any idea's on something profitable genius? Instead of complaining about what seems like crap?

 

[randomrogue]

LOL, I can't believe anyone still actually thinks this thing will ever get built.

I moved to California in 1981, and there were big plans back then for this.

The thing is, it will never happen because local governments will never come together on were it should go. In the Bay Area, Palo Alto and San Mateo have already said they don't want it going through their cities.

King County surely doesn't want it, and are trying to delay approval of the environmental impact study for the first part of the project.

This thing is doomed :thumbsup:

I thought Marin would never ever approve of the weird mass transit / expansion thing they got going on over there but they did.

 

[iGas]

Here is another prediction. The estimate for ridership will be higher than what they see. 95 million a year? lmao. 260,000 people a day? Good luck.

This is a better "estimate" of the traffic we can expect to see between San Francisco and LA. About 2 million\year. Air traffic is about 1.5 million on that route right now and I am estimating cars take up another 500,000 a year.

And one more prediction. So many lawsuits will be slapped on this project due to endagered species or ecosystem destruction it wont be done before 2050.

Infrastructure projects should build infrastructure that is useful. Not build high speed trains a handful of people want.

I wouldnt have a problem with this if Federal dollars werent being wasted.

The projection for economy class air fares will be roughly the same as the current first class air fares within a decade due to fuel price. And IMHO, there will be less people driving and flying if there is fast train service a couple of decades from now.

I have to agree with you that there will be trees huggers (perhaps boulder huggers) like the OP will be chaining themselves to boulders while cries "hell no we won't go" to further delay the project.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Which explains why they have the second highest unemployment rate in the country?

California USED to be an awesome place. And then they started to vote themselves benefits payed for with other peoples money (taxes) and it went to hell.

That doesn't mean that it's not a desirable area to live. California certainly has a lot of undesirable areas to live, mainly the more conservative sections. CA's economy has its ups and downs, but overall it does quite well.

Again, there's a reason why VC funding is largely concentrated among more liberal areas. Even in a place like TX, we see more funding going to the more liberal areas.

Conservative areas just aren't very conducive to progressive thought, which is very important when working with innovative industry and practices. That's why Facebook was created in a more liberal environment (Cambridge) and then it moved to another liberal environment (Palo Alto).

I think that's why we see conservative areas more likely to service industries that are actually created in liberal areas of the country. We can't depend on a more conservative place to develop the next major technology or industry - we usually look towards liberal regions to do that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Going to Texas and figuring out how they are doing it.

Hint: lower taxes, less government interference, less red tape, did I mention lower taxes?

California has the 15th highest personal tax burden, Texas the 44th...
California has the 2nd worst business tax climate, Texas the the 13th best.

Well if the weather didn't suck and if it wasn't full of Fund A Mental Case Social Conservatives Texas probably would be a nice place to live.

 

[Moonbeam]

I prayed on this and God wants it built. Only Anti-Christ Republicans will oppose it.

 

[HendrixFan]

:hmm:

You may be right. $30 billion in gas taxes and $70 billion in spending.

Ahh.... some of the gas tax money is taken and used to fund mass transit. Which is where that idea came from.

So you pay 18 cent per gallon and 15 cent goes to roads 2 cents goes to mass transit and 1 cent goes to underground tank stuff (I made the numbers up)

The point is that ALL of the money raised via gas taxes does not cover the federal spending for highways, in direct contrast to your earlier claims.

 

[JSt0rm]

I prayed on this and God wants it built. Only Anti-Christ Republicans will oppose it.

Yes god spoke to me and told me this was the best path.

 

[werepossum]

The projection for economy class air fares will be roughly the same as the current first class air fares within a decade due to fuel price. And IMHO, there will be less people driving and flying if there is fast train service a couple of decades from now.

I have to agree with you that there will be trees huggers (perhaps boulder huggers) like the OP will be chaining themselves to boulders while cries "hell no we won't go" to further delay the project.

Tree huggers might well favor the project, as trains are probably easier on the Earth than are planes or automobiles.

 

[iGas]

I can't wait for this system to be built. It would be really nice to take the train around the state of California. I took a high speed train in China (luckily it didn't crash and kill me) and it was so nice and convenient to travel on it.

I have taken trains in many countries including from Vancouver BC to El Paso TX, and IMHO the "third world" train that ran from Singapore through Malaysia to Bangkok is head and shoulder better than the US counter part. Even domestic Thailand train from Bangkok to Chiang Mai is better and faster, and the same go for Indonesia (first class train is better and cheaper than US. Economy class/train isn't great but you can travel 500+ Km for less than $2 USD).

 

[Moonbeam]

Tree huggers might well favor the project, as trains are probably easier on the Earth than are planes or automobiles.

God is a tree hugger. He made them green and leafy.

 

[theeedude]

Gonna create $43B of aggregate demand, and have a train system to show for it. Noone remembers how much interstate highway system cost, or how much Hoover Dam cost, or how much WW2 cost. People just remember those helped us create jobs and build a strong country. Money is just some digits on Federal reserve's computer.

 

[werepossum]

God is a tree hugger. He made them green and leafy.

Agreed. They are also nice to climb, or to provide shade.

 

[chucky2]

Gonna create $43B of aggregate demand, and have a train system to show for it. Noone remembers how much interstate highway system cost, or how much Hoover Dam cost, or how much WW2 cost. People just remember those helped us create jobs and build a strong country. Money is just some digits on Federal reserve's computer.

Amazing intellect...Sig'd...

 

[ProfJohn]

The point is that ALL of the money raised via gas taxes does not cover the federal spending for highways, in direct contrast to your earlier claims.

You are right.

But this point remains and is completely true.

Drivers pay for 50% of the Federal roads they drive on.

Train passengers pay for NONE of the track that they ride on. The government pays to build the train system and then has to pay for the operating costs as well. Every person that gets on an Amtrak train costs the government $32.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm

Right now trains are a black hole of money. We pay to build them then we have to pay to operate them. And the people who ride them aren't even paying enough to cover operating costs.

 

[theeedude]

Amazing intellect...Sig'd...

That's all it is, sorry if it's some big surprise for you.

 

[Red Dawn]

You are right.

But this point remains and is completely true.

Drivers pay for 50% of the Federal roads they drive on.

Train passengers pay for NONE of the track that they ride on. The government pays to build the train system and then has to pay for the operating costs as well. Every person that gets on an Amtrak train costs the government $32.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm

Right now trains are a black hole of money. We pay to build them then we have to pay to operate them. And the people who ride them aren't even paying enough to cover operating costs.

Yes but the revenue from the jobs created by this program will.

 

[alphatarget1]

That's because CA is such a desirable place to live for high income earners, that home pricing shows the desire of high talent individuals desiring to live in CA.

So, yes, CA is tough to own a home, but that's because it's such a desired place to live. That tends to deter those individuals who are not as innovative, creative, and productive, but the best still keep on coming and increasing housing costs.

Bringing up the issue of housing just reinforces the belief that highly productive individuals generally prefer to live in more liberal areas, e.g., CA, NYC, Boston, etc.

CA is becoming the land of super rich and super poor and a hollowed out middle class. The middle class in CA is getting taxed the crap out of while they get nothing back in return. You can see this in housing prices where the truly desirable houses in rich neighborhoods aren't experiencing huge decreases in home pricing, whereas middle class neighborhoods' housing prices are getting decimated. Sure, you have a bunch of yuppie programmers working in social media who are getting paid well, but it isn't a diverse economy at all.

If a company opens up shop in Austin (fairly desirable place to live), talent will flow there. Businesses basically have no reason to start in California due to its regulatory and hostile business climate. Even Democrats in Texas are pro-growth. I'm not a fan of Texas Republicans just because of the sheer power they possess in shaping the states' politics, but I think they manage economics MUCH better than California's Democrats. I basically don't see any social services provided in California that is not provided in Texas, yet the tax burden in Texas is much lower than in California.

I grew up in CA. Many of my friends in high school has since moved away. Their parents cashed out on their houses' equity and moved to other states. When my friends from college got laid off, they moved to Texas (Austin to be exact). California will have to think long and hard about how to keep businesses from moving to other states if they want their economy to revive.

My $0.02.

 

[K1052]

You are right.

But this point remains and is completely true.

Drivers pay for 50% of the Federal roads they drive on.

Train passengers pay for NONE of the track that they ride on. The government pays to build the train system and then has to pay for the operating costs as well. Every person that gets on an Amtrak train costs the government $32.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-10-27-amtrak-passenger-subsidies_N.htm

Right now trains are a black hole of money. We pay to build them then we have to pay to operate them. And the people who ride them aren't even paying enough to cover operating costs.

Outside the NE corridor and a few other places Amtrak runs on rail owned by the freight railroads. They are obligated to allow it since the deal that let them get rid of passenger service required it. It is interesting the relatively wide support that Amtrak enjoys in congress to at least maintain the staus quo of service, neither side of the aisle wants the communities they represent to loose service by eliminating the subsidy...which is about $1Bish annually. Fare recovery varies widely depending on the route.

It's easy to say that Amtrak does a mediocre job or is inefficient (neither of which I dispute) but considering what there is to work with it shouldn't be a surprise, it's been set up to fail for decades by the government.

Oh and from the think tank that did the study in the article:

Van Beek cautioned against holding passenger rail service to a higher standard than other forms of transportation.

"Let's not hold rail up and say it needs to make money when highways don't make money, transit doesn't make money and a lot of small airports don't make money and they all get subsidies," Van Beek said.

 

[RabidMongoose]

CA is becoming the land of super rich and super poor and a hollowed out middle class. The middle class in CA is getting taxed the crap out of while they get nothing back in return. You can see this in housing prices where the truly desirable houses in rich neighborhoods aren't experiencing huge decreases in home pricing, whereas middle class neighborhoods' housing prices are getting decimated. Sure, you have a bunch of yuppie programmers working in social media who are getting paid well, but it isn't a diverse economy at all.

And yet CA still provides a better overall standard of living than a more conservative place like TX, even with becoming the land of super rich.

Only portions of CA may be becoming the land of the super rich, basically the portions attracting the best and the brightest from the entire world. But it allows for better social services overall.

If a company opens up shop in Austin (fairly desirable place to live), talent will flow there. Businesses basically have no reason to start in California due to its regulatory and hostile business climate. Even Democrats in Texas are pro-growth. I'm not a fan of Texas Republicans just because of the sheer power they possess in shaping the states' politics, but I think they manage economics MUCH better than California's Democrats. I basically don't see any social services provided in California that is not provided in Texas, yet the tax burden in Texas is much lower than in California.

Austin can attract talent, but that's also because it's a very liberal town, as I've said earlier.

I grew up in CA. Many of my friends in high school has since moved away. Their parents cashed out on their houses' equity and moved to other states. When my friends from college got laid off, they moved to Texas (Austin to be exact). California will have to think long and hard about how to keep businesses from moving to other states if they want their economy to revive.

Yes, CA is incredibly expensive in the more desirable liberal areas, but that's because it attracts people from all over the world who are innovative, creative, and successful. It's a tougher place to live in the best areas if you're more average.

 

[werepossum]

Outside the NE corridor and a few other places Amtrak runs on rail owned by the freight railroads. They are obligated to allow it since the deal that let them get rid of passenger service required it. It is interesting the relatively wide support that Amtrak enjoys in congress to at least maintain the staus quo of service, neither side of the aisle wants the communities they represent to loose service by eliminating the subsidy...which is about $1Bish annually. Fare recovery varies widely depending on the route.

It's easy to say that Amtrak does a mediocre job or is inefficient (neither of which I dispute) but considering what there is to work with it shouldn't be a surprise, it's been set up to fail for decades by the government.

Oh and from the think tank that did the study in the article:

That's a valid point, but the fact remain that passenger trains lose money. A LOT of money with respect to other modes of transportation. Something that loses a lot of money is not an ideal thing to invest in when one is suffering from crushing debt.

 

[ayabe]

Given that we would basically have to triple the current spending levels on roads/bridges/highways just to maintain what we've already got - this is a decent alternative.