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

[theeedude]

Who said we are building railroads instead of fiber?
Are all the states who are not building high speed rail building fiber instead?
It's not mutually exclusive, it could be both, or more likely neither.
But I do love that people on the right are now advocating for fiber internet as a government built public utility. That is real progress, and I congratulate you on it. Please write to your representatives and tell them to get going on it.

 

[glenn1]

Who said we are building railroads instead of fiber?
Are all the states who are not building high speed rail building fiber instead?
It's not mutually exclusive, it could be both, or more likely neither.
But I do love that people on the right are now advocating for fiber internet as a government built public utility. That is real progress, and I congratulate you on it. Please write to your representatives and tell them to get going on it.

Because HSR doesn't have any feasible path to economic plausibility in most states. The distance between the major stations need to be in the goldilocks zone and the route needs to have enough routine demand to even make sense. I myself am not saying the LA-SF line shouldn't be built, I'm merely arguing that the state shouldn't be allowed to rely on the federal taxpayer to bail them out on the inevitable overruns on both construction and ongoing operating costs. When this turns into the next Boston Big Dig then California needs to know that the costs of corruption and mismanagement are completely on them and not the American public at large.

As for fiber, I don't think the government needs to build it themselves but I'd be fine if they offered right of way access where appropriate, for example they could allow fiber companies to follow interstate highway or railroad lines. Of course the last mile problem will still exist and that's not really a federal problem.

 

[theeedude]

When California takes more in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes, then you can get on your high horse and point at us.
Who said California won't allow fiber to follow its high speed rail? You are grasping here.

 

[glenn1]

When California takes more in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes, then you can get on your high horse and point at us.
Who said California won't allow fiber to follow its high speed rail? You are grasping here.

Again that state of affairs is what you continuously vote for AND it's a stupid argument to boot. If some other republican-led state who paid in more federal taxes than they receive back used that argument as reason they should get federal funds for (fill in the blank for something that would horrify you) would you agree to that based on "well they paid more than they got"? At least with local mass transit spending like the LA Metro that at least helps the "little guy" that you guys pretend to champion, HSR almost exclusively helps the wealthier business travelers and tourists. HSR rail doesn't do sh!t for the waitress who needs to get to work in Koreatown from her apartment in Inglewood, but it does help the software engineer in SF hop on the train to visit LA for a day to have sushi or see the Warriors play the Lakers. I don't see where that's the best utilization of funds but it's your state so have fun, just don't expect taxpayers in Saint Louis or Sault Sainte Marie to pay for it.

 

[douglasmark497]

This is nuts. Completely nuts.

The state can't balance its budget nor can the federal government, but we can build a $43 billion train route from San Fran to LA??

Some estimate it could cost closer to $80 billion before they are done. And remember that this is the state that paid $6 billion for ONE bridge...

The cost has already jumped by at least $3 billion and they haven't even started construction.

How much longer till California goes broke?

California's High-Speed Rail Draws $179 Million in Federal Aid as Cost Soars

Both parties waste money on b.s. Republicans have their pork programs as well and many fixate on expanding the military.

 

[fskimospy]

Again that state of affairs is what you continuously vote for AND it's a stupid argument to boot. If some other republican-led state who paid in more federal taxes than they receive back used that argument as reason they should get federal funds for (fill in the blank for something that would horrify you) would you agree to that based on "well they paid more than they got"? At least with local mass transit spending like the LA Metro that at least helps the "little guy" that you guys pretend to champion, HSR almost exclusively helps the wealthier business travelers and tourists. HSR rail doesn't do sh!t for the waitress who needs to get to work in Koreatown from her apartment in Inglewood, but it does help the software engineer in SF hop on the train to visit LA for a day to have sushi or see the Warriors play the Lakers. I don't see where that's the best utilization of funds but it's your state so have fun, just don't expect taxpayers in Saint Louis or Sault Sainte Marie to pay for it.

Actually HSR helps everyone traveling between cities and even within/around cities because it reduces congestion for everyone else on the road. That's sort of the point, after all.

And yes, Californians will not only expect taxpayers in St. Louis or wherever else to contribute funds, those taxpayers WILL contribute funds because that's how federalism works. That includes you too, by the way. Your taxes will go straight over to California if the federal government decides that's what it wants to do.

 

[K1052]

Because HSR doesn't have any feasible path to economic plausibility in most states. The distance between the major stations need to be in the goldilocks zone and the route needs to have enough routine demand to even make sense. I myself am not saying the LA-SF line shouldn't be built, I'm merely arguing that the state shouldn't be allowed to rely on the federal taxpayer to bail them out on the inevitable overruns on both construction and ongoing operating costs. When this turns into the next Boston Big Dig then California needs to know that the costs of corruption and mismanagement are completely on them and not the American public at large.

As for fiber, I don't think the government needs to build it themselves but I'd be fine if they offered right of way access where appropriate, for example they could allow fiber companies to follow interstate highway or railroad lines. Of course the last mile problem will still exist and that's not really a federal problem.

There are few places that are suitable for true HSR at present. SF-LA-SD, the NEC, and probably a Chicago hub system stretching to places like Minneapolis/Indianapolis/Detroit/St. Louis. Federal funding is actually a significant plus when it comes to cost control since states left to their own devices often end up spending multiples of what's required.

Lots and lots of fiber is already run along rail ROWs.

 

[glenn1]

There are few places that are suitable for true HSR at present. SF-LA-SD, the NEC, and probably a Chicago hub system stretching to places like Minneapolis/Indianapolis/Detroit/St. Louis. Federal funding is actually a significant plus when it comes to cost control since states left to their own devices often end up spending multiples of what's required.

Lots and lots of fiber is already run along rail ROWs.

Why do I care about cost control if federal contribution is low? Involving more federal money on the premise that it will be cheaper that way is a bullsh!t premise, if California wants to waste tons on money on corrupt practices or mismanagement that's on them. It's not the obligation of other states to give federal taxpayer money to save another state from its own incompetence for a system that will exclusively benefit California.

 

[Joepublic2]

Still doesn't hold a candle to the conservative's 2 trillion dollar war to destabilize the middle east. As others have said, at least we get some infrastructure out of this, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of dead bodies.

The US rail infastructure is embarrassingly obsolete as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines

WE'RE 21. WOOOO.

 

[Drako]

This thing needs to just die already, but uncle Jerry and his cronies won't let it. Already spent almost $2 billion, and no track has been laid yet. <smh>

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-745796-apparently-speed.html

 

[Thebobo]

Well I don't live in california but High speed train > Trump wall. Another great idea to defund the potential for a high speed train in our great america! Ha we have the shitiest rail travel. This will be trumps fault because ofhis asinine budget.

Make train travel in america great again!

 

[brandonbull]

Well I don't live in california but High speed train > Trump wall. Another great idea to defund the potential for a high speed train in our great america! Ha we have the shitiest rail travel. This will be trumps fault because ofhis asinine budget.

Make train travel in america great again!

There are only a few cities where HSR might be practical. People forget that the US doesn't have the population density of all the awesome utopias that they fantasize about.

 

[Drako]

Make train travel in america great again!

Why?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Do the math...

$43,000,000,000 to build. How many people need to ride it just to pay construction costs?

BTW Amtrak lost $32 per passenger in 2008.

More great info...
"Last year, Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express train carried a record 593,000 passengers from Boston to New York" <--2008 data.

So traffic between the largest city and fifth largest city was only 593,000.

NY & Boston have a combined population of 29 million.

La + San Fran... 25 million...

So please explain to me how they expect to get millions of people on this freaking train?

Actually, your cost-benefit factors are the problem with your argument. You're behaving like the myopic businessman, thinking that the project must pay for itself strictly from revenues it gets in fares.

The CA bullet train will completely change the labor-management landscape in the state, with beneficiaries on both sides, but offering advantage to the largest number of individuals. Poor people are limited in their budgets to pay for a journey to work. Suddenly, some poor laborer in the lower central valley or Watts can work in any number of locations that might have been impossible with the automobile, and such workers often cannot even afford their own automobile.

An example of this is the transformation from the old Route 66 of a history that goes back before the Depression, and its replacement by I-40. I-40 offers an economic transformation with better transshipment of goods from coastal break-of-bulk points. It offered business advantages in addition to simply better or greater mobility for travelers and commuters. The old mom-and-pop diners of Route 66 merely relocate and prosper at major truck-stops and fueling points along the interstate.

 

[Thebobo]

Why?

To get the fuckers off the road while I'm driving damnit!

Want a serious answer? Na i doubt you would, it won't change your opinion so why bother. Look it up if you really want to.

 

[Drako]

The CA bullet train will completely change the labor-management landscape in the state, with beneficiaries on both sides, but offering advantage to the largest number of individuals. Poor people are limited in their budgets to pay for a journey to work. Suddenly, some poor laborer in the lower central valley or Watts can work in any number of locations that might have been impossible with the automobile, and such workers often cannot even afford their own automobile.

Wow, can I have some of the shit you're smoking, because that is some pie in the sky BS right there.

And LMAO replying to a guy that has not been on here in over 4 years.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Wow, can I have some of the shit you're smoking, because that is some pie in the sky BS right there.

And LMAO replying to a guy that has not been on here in over 4 years.

No, you are delusional.

The main offer of better transportation infrastructure has always included business expansion, and the benefits have always accrued in ways that are only partially measurable at any point in time, although simple statistical sampling would provide good estimates.

Why on earth do you think that dams are built at public expense?

The only question about the bullet train would be some expectation of total fare revenues. One could even run consistently manageable losses and the train might still benefit the state with a better economy and more tax revenues.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually, your cost-benefit factors are the problem with your argument. You're behaving like the myopic businessman, thinking that the project must pay for itself strictly from revenues it gets in fares.

The CA bullet train will completely change the labor-management landscape in the state, with beneficiaries on both sides, but offering advantage to the largest number of individuals. Poor people are limited in their budgets to pay for a journey to work. Suddenly, some poor laborer in the lower central valley or Watts can work in any number of locations that might have been impossible with the automobile, and such workers often cannot even afford their own automobile.

An example of this is the transformation from the old Route 66 of a history that goes back before the Depression, and its replacement by I-40. I-40 offers an economic transformation with better transshipment of goods from coastal break-of-bulk points. It offered business advantages in addition to simply better or greater mobility for travelers and commuters. The old mom-and-pop diners of Route 66 merely relocate and prosper at major truck-stops and fueling points along the interstate.

ProfJohn (the guy you quoted) was a conservative that was banned a long, long time ago...you might as well be talking to a wall.

 

[zinfamous]

There are only a few cities where HSR might be practical. People forget that the US doesn't have the population density of all the awesome utopias that they fantasize about.

On this, I agree with you. But isn't just about cities; it's about major commuter metro areas. There are regions in the US that make tons of sense: SF > SJ > LA; MA > NY > DC (and maybe to Richmond). Charlotte > RTP (helicopter over SC ) >ATL; ATL > Jax >Tampa > Miami; Dallas > Huston > Austin (maybe). etc.

No one is talking about HSR for the entire country, but for commuter zones where traffic and population density is, quite literally, deplorable. The US actually has that very same population density in such parts of the country.

 

[zinfamous]

ProfJohn (the guy you quoted) was a conservative that was banned a long, long time ago...you might as well be talking to a wall.

So, nothing ever changed from responding to him when he was still active here. Hi-YO!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, nothing ever changed from responding to him when he was still active here. Hi-YO!

lol But that's true for most of us as well...it's been my experience that people here rarely, if ever, actually change their opinion.

 

[zinfamous]

lol But that's true for most of us as well...it's been my experience that people here rarely, if ever, actually change their opinion.

Well, I do, sorta.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

ProfJohn (the guy you quoted) was a conservative that was banned a long, long time ago...you might as well be talking to a wall.

Banned? Banned?! Interesting.

But the audience includes anyone else. I just wasted my time trying to reason with a chucklehead. I waste a lot of time, and owe none to anyone. Anyway, just as good as an exercise to clarify my thoughts about it. I've seen so much drivel from the local chucklehead club in the paper that I've failed to follow the issue closely before. I remained indifferent; it made an interesting whipping-boy for the local-right's ire, directed at state-government, Brown and the federal-level. So this has helped me shift a bit.

Usually, a project as big as the bullet-train will have all sorts of miscalculations in the planning of it. We only come out of the last decade with a similar debacle pertaining to the local I-215, state 60 and state 91 highway rebuild here in So-Cal Riv-county. I only advocate keener attention to those details.

LATER: Oh. I see. I thought I was responding to the same person. "Drako," "Profjohn."

I need some more coffee. In a way, Drako was almost right.

 

[Sonikku]

ProfJohn (the guy you quoted) was a conservative that was banned a long, long time ago...you might as well be talking to a wall.

I fail to see how him being banned makes a difference in that regard.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The High Speed Rail Proposition A was passed in 2008, the only reason it succeeded was because then Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is in charge of all ballot measures, allowed the proponents of High Speed Rail to lie about the cost, lie about how long it would take to build, lie about how fast it would be and even lie about where it was going to be located.
If he had done his duty and made the authors of the Proposition tell the truth, it never would have been approved by the voters.