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

[chucky2]

Wow, had California just not allowed 1/3 of Mexico to invade, and spent the rest of the $80B this will cost on active and passive population control measures, there'd be no need for a train, all the while solving other little small problems like pollution, overcrowding, water usage, energy usage, etc. etc. etc.

Can't wait in the coming years to see how much this costs and how much tickets and ridership rates are...

 

[ProfJohn]

Well if commuting form Central CA to either the Bay Area or SoCal was a lot easier, less time consuming and less expensive a lot of those communties would grow exponentially. In the end the $43 billion woold be a great investment and great for CA's economy which would bring in a lot more revenue for the country.

If it works it would be brilliant.

But California can't create any jobs as it is right now. Might want to work on fixing that problem first.

 

[Red Dawn]

If it works it would be brilliant.

But California can't create any jobs as it is right now. Might want to work on fixing that problem first.

WTF do you think that'll do?

 

[Red Dawn]

Wow, had California just not allowed 1/3 of Mexico to invade, and spent the rest of the $80B this will cost on active and passive population control measures, there'd be no need for a train, all the while solving other little small problems like pollution, overcrowding, water usage, energy usage, etc. etc. etc.

Can't wait in the coming years to see how much this costs and how much tickets and ridership rates are...

For talkiing out your ass you speak rather well

 

[alphatarget1]

Here are some facts about the LA metro system.
http://www.metro.net/news/pages/facts-glance/

Only 10% of its operating budget comes from fares, the rest is from taxes and other outside sources. (that includes trains and bas fare, but the cost just to operate the trans is as much as the total fares brought in system wide)

They do have 90 million boardings a year, which is a good number. It is the 9th most used system in the country. Which makes you wonder... 2nd biggest city, 9th biggest ridership... :hmm:

140,000 people use the system on an average weekday.

Here is the fun part though...
The red line is 17 miles long and cost $4.5 billion to build. That is $264 million per mile!

It does have 47 million boardings per year though. So it only cost $95 per rider to build. At $1 a rider it will pay for itself in 95 years.

I would say a system like this might actually make sense since it has enough riders per day to justify itself.

But a system that will cost 10 times as much and have half as many riders... :hmm:

It's in the taxpayers' interest to subsidize transportation systems such as the one you mentioned. If all of the riders drove instead of take the train, the roads would have to be massively expanded. Land in LA is expensive, and how much extra would it cost to add 2 lanes of roads on a major freeway? Right of way acquisition is also not cheap. Like I said before, there are other factors to consider when it comes from building transportation systems. When something unforeseen happens to roads and bridges, at least people will have an option to get to work other than just driving.

Think about it this way: if all of the riders had to use the automobile instead and 20% of them carpooled (which is an unrealistic number anyway, usually it's much lower), you'll add 126,000 trips onto roadways. How much would that do to the road system? How many lanes will have to be added to accommodate?

Some places like Texas is facing a dilemma- I-35 is constantly congested in Austin and there is basically no room to build. I'm not sure what they are planning to do. Dallas has a decent train system. Houston has none, and they decided to build tollways such as the new one opened on I-10. If population keeps expanding, will they just build more roads?

If you talk to anybody who works in transportation planning, they'll tell you the same thing- that a majority of mass transportation systems reduce *overall* cost of transportation based on the factors I mentioned above, and usually there are many more.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If it works it would be brilliant.

But California can't create any jobs as it is right now. Might want to work on fixing that problem first.

California is creating jobs right now. Maybe not enough, but it's creating jobs. This will probably create even more jobs.

 

[ProfJohn]

why does cali's train cost so damn much?

That would seem to be our problem.

The Cal system would be 1,300km long. At a cost of $15 million per KM that would suggest a cost of $20 billion.

Instead they are guessing it will cost double that and once cost overruns are included you can expect it to be 3 or 4 times as much per mile.

 

[freegeeks]

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.

 

[K1052]

Highways actually make a profit for the federal government though.

We take in more in gas taxes than we spend on roads.

That would be incorrect. The Highway Trust fund went insolvent a number of years ago and Congress has been giving it regular multi-billion dollar cash infusions to prop it up. Given that mpg is increasing and the gax tax rate has not been raised since like 1993 the funding gap is going to widen into a chasm in the coming years.

That also does not count all the road construction programs that aren't funded by gas taxes.

 

[chucky2]

For talkiing out your ass you speak rather well

Go look at Sense's (White Guilter's orgasm) chart, and realize that that's in a short 39 years. Then think what it'll be another 30 years after that. Then realize that land, nor water, are increasing...land is a constant, and water is decreasing - unless some hefty desalination projects start happening for CA.

There is no speaking out asses on those matters, they're massive long term issues that basically no politician is touching meaningfully. To begin to live sustainably for the US, we need to stop importing/allowing people to import themselves here, stop having women have more than 2 kids, etc.

I know this doesn't fit into the 'lets make the entire landmass of the US into one huge city because we hate them d@mn redneck's' mindset, but, these issues are going to start hitting the larger population centers first and hardest. Spending tens of Billions on what will end up being degraded HSR and hence just SortaSpeedyRail and that has the same security checks as airflight, instead of spending it on letting Mexican's/Central American's be Mexico's/Central America's problem rather than ours and thereby actually doing something about our longterm systemic problems, is F'ing retarded. It's worse than the total delusional f*cktards who bought the absolutely fake "Hope and Change" mantra that was even more transperent than WMD in Iraq.

But, keep on keepin on...you're great grandchildren will thank you...

 

[ProfJohn]

He's not left wing in American terms either. Most of the country wanted tax hikes on the wealthy as part of the deficit deal, he didn't push for those hard. His health care bill is borrowed from Republican Heritage Foundation's plan in the 90s, while Bush expanded single payer Medicare, a New Deal program. So in that sense, he's to the right of Bush on health care.

He WANTED tax cuts too. The fact that he didn't get them doesn't mean he isn't left wing.

And to claim that he is to the right of Bush on healthcare is idiocy. Obama wants a single payer system, he said so himself in many interviews. He also said that getting there would take a long time and involve many steps. Obamacare is step one, you are just too stupid to realize that.

 

[Red Dawn]

That would seem to be our problem.

The Cal system would be 1,300km long. At a cost of $15 million per KM that would suggest a cost of $20 billion.

Instead they are guessing it will cost double that and once cost overruns are included you can expect it to be 3 or 4 times as much per mile.

It will be paid for by more than just tickets ProJo, I'm sure you are at least smart enough to realize that.

 

[K1052]

That would seem to be our problem.

The Cal system would be 1,300km long. At a cost of $15 million per KM that would suggest a cost of $20 billion.

Instead they are guessing it will cost double that and once cost overruns are included you can expect it to be 3 or 4 times as much per mile.

The work in urban areas and any tunneling that has to be done racks up the cost.

For comparison NYC's Second Ave subway will cost something like $20B dollars for eight miles of track and stations.

 

[alphatarget1]

By the way, is the CA HSR system planning to use "China's technology"? I for one would not want to use a system that is unproven. Check out the recent Chinese HSR crash.

 

[ProfJohn]

Source? My numbers show the federal gas tax raised $25B and the budget numbers for the DOT's Federal Highway Administration is $48.8B. Of that, $43.6B is specifically earmarked for "Federal Aid - Highways".

: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 idea is that people driving cars are helping to pay for people riding trains.


If you want to argue about it from an infrastructure POV think of it this way. People who drive cars and pay gas taxes pay for about 50% of the roads the drive on, the other 50% comes from general taxes.

People who use trains pay for none of the tracks they ride on since 100% of the cost of construction is paid for by other funds and the fares they pay usually don't even cover yearly operating costs.

 

[theeedude]

He WANTED tax cuts too. The fact that he didn't get them doesn't mean he isn't left wing.

And to claim that he is to the right of Bush on healthcare is idiocy. Obama wants a single payer system, he said so himself in many interviews. He also said that getting there would take a long time and involve many steps. Obamacare is step one, you are just too stupid to realize that.

Doesn't matter what he personally wants. His actual politics in office is to aim to the right of center, and end up hitting even further to the right. Even Bush tax cuts, he wants to keep most of them. Obamacare is a distraction from getting to universal single payer. Letting status quo continue on its current track to oblivion would probably have gotten us there faster. I am fine with having USSC rule individual mandate unconstitutional just to get all these rightwing solutions out of the way and leave it between status quo and single payer.

 

[K1052]

By the way, is the CA HSR system planning to use "China's technology"? I for one would not want to use a system that is unproven. Check out the recent Chinese HSR crash.

No decisions on rolling stock or signaling systems have been made and they won't be for some time.

The bidding for that is going to be hotly competitive between Japan/Europe/China given the size of the potential US market.

 

[theeedude]

They should get Tesla to build us high speed rail
Elon Musk knows how to build rockets and knows how to build electric cars, so building a nice high speed train here in CA should be piece of cake

 

[RabidMongoose]

It would be great to leave it in the hands of a CA company.

 

[ProfJohn]

That chart missed the 2010 goal by about a couple million people.

Since 1990 the state has added 8 million people. And it actually added less people between 2000 & 2010 than between 1990 and 2000. State is only adding 400,000 people a year. (20 year average)

At its current rate of growth it should hit 40 million before 2020. 50 million may take all the way too 2040 and 60 million 2065 or longer. Unless the rate of growth returned to what it used to be.

 

[ProfJohn]

WTF do you think that'll do?

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

Overall, CA can afford to have a 'worse business climate' or what not because it's a very desirable area to live. The workforce is far more skilled than in most other states. That's why a place like Silicon Valley continuously creates innovative companies and VC funding is by far the largest in CA. If companies want to access the much better skilled labor force, then they'll have to deal with policies that are more friendly to the citizens.

There's a reason why most of the innovation and funding follows liberal areas - the best and brightest generally look for a more progressive environment. It's not a coincidence that VC funding is largely concentrated in more progressive environments.

Even in a place like TX, the most innovative area is liberal (Austin). But TX has an overall low standard of living, e.g., it has high levels of poverty, high rates of uninsured, etc. What's better - a more innovative population with a high standard of living or a less innovative population with a lower standard of living, but with a business climate that allows the exploitation of the population?

 

[alphatarget1]

But TX has an overall low standard of living, e.g., it has high levels of poverty, high rates of uninsured, etc. What's better - a more innovative population with a high standard of living or a less innovative population with a lower standard of living, but with a business climate that allows the exploitation of the population?

I disagree. If you know what you are doing in Texas, it's much easier to buy a house and save money than a place like California. I have a friend who is an auto mechanic who makes 36k a year and also owns a house. You can NEVER do that in California on that kind of salary. Metro areas in Texas are thriving. Some of the more rural areas aren't doing as well, sure, but you can say the same about rural areas in California which are especially hard hit in the economic downturn.

 

[BarneyFife]

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I disagree. If you know what you are doing in Texas, it's much easier to buy a house and save money than a place like California. I have a friend who is an auto mechanic who makes 36k a year and also owns a house. You can NEVER do that in California on that kind of salary. Metro areas in Texas are thriving. Some of the more rural areas aren't doing as well, sure, but you can say the same about rural areas in California which are especially hard hit in the economic downturn.

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.