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

[fskimospy]

I'd rather have higher speed internet. Scrap the trains and put in more fiber.

Both coasts would strongly benefit from high speed rail. We need more of it, not less. The northeast in particular should vastly expand its rail offerings.

 

[glenn1]

No, he has a point now. He is fine with California paying out more then it gets in total, but that means that some projects that exist entirely within a state get federal funding sometimes. Since California taxpayers contribute a disproportionate amount to other states it's not out of line to expect that some projects in California will get federal money back.

You're the one who is saying that under the current circumstances California should both not give federal money to other states AND should pay for its own internal projects alone. Can't have it both ways.

No, I'm saying that California should not need to contribute "more than its share" to other states and has the means to vote against doing so. "I make more money than you so I should be allowed to spend communal money on stupid things for myself without needing to justify it" is a terrible way of running either a family or a country. It's also something that Californians should be the first to oppose since there's going to be a lot more money going to fund "Bridge to Nowhere" projects in Alaska or other BFE state that's not California. Rather I would see all the funds raised by the federal gasoline excise tax given directly to the states for their own use. If California raises $10B/year from its gas taxes and wants to spend some large portion of it on a "High Speed" Train (high speed being relative I guess) to some rural inland town then so be it. But asking the rest of us to fund either that train or the Bridge to Nowhere is both irresponsible and stupid.

 

[Thump553]

I clicked on this thread solely because I thought PJ had returned. Oh well, necro'd again.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm saying that California should not need to contribute "more than its share" to other states and has the means to vote against doing so. "I make more money than you so I should be allowed to spend communal money on stupid things for myself without needing to justify it" is a terrible way of running either a family or a country. It's also something that Californians should be the first to oppose since there's going to be a lot more money going to fund "Bridge to Nowhere" projects in Alaska or other BFE state that's not California. Rather I would see all the funds raised by the federal gasoline excise tax given directly to the states for their own use. If California raises $10B/year from its gas taxes and wants to spend some large portion of it on a "High Speed" Train (high speed being relative I guess) to some rural inland town then so be it. But asking the rest of us to fund either that train or the Bridge to Nowhere is both irresponsible and stupid.

You're basically arguing against federalism then.

 

[glenn1]

Both coasts would strongly benefit from high speed rail. We need more of it, not less. The northeast in particular should vastly expand its rail offerings.

And guess what feature the northeast has that lends itself to federal support for HST? The fact that multiple states would benefit from it instead of being an exclusively intrastate service. Good luck building it however with the NIMBY and BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) folks in those states. The ones who will spend all morning demonstrating against climate change and then all afternoon opposing windmills because it hurts their property value and are an "eyesore."

 

[fskimospy]

And guess what feature the northeast has that lends itself to federal support for HST? The fact that multiple states would benefit from it instead of being an exclusively intrastate service. Good luck building it however with the NIMBY and BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) folks in those states. The ones who will spend all morning demonstrating against climate change and then all afternoon opposing windmills because it hurts their property value and are an "eyesore."

If the northeast were one giant state the case for federal funding would be equally strong, considering the economic value the northeast brings to the country.

That being said, I totally agree the NIMBYism is a big problem, although the percentage of people with waterfront property who are doing what you suggest is vanishingly small.

That's what is sad about that bullshit eminent domain case from a few years back. I'm all for using eminent domain in cases of clear national benefit like this. When governments abused it for commercial development it put a stain on the whole idea.

 

[glenn1]

If the northeast were one giant state the case for federal funding would be equally strong, considering the economic value the northeast brings to the country.

That being said, I totally agree the NIMBYism is a big problem, although the percentage of people with waterfront property who are doing what you suggest is vanishingly small.

That's what is sad about that bullshit eminent domain case from a few years back. I'm all for using eminent domain in cases of clear national benefit like this. When governments abused it for commercial development it put a stain on the whole idea.

If you were arguing on economic benefit and the joys of federalism then you'd oppose federal funds for CA HST also. When thousands of bridges nationwide are structurally unsound and other core infrastructure is billions of dollars in arrears for needed maintenance, instead spending scarce resources on a vanity HSR project is both short-sighted and extremely unfair to the residents of other states and Californians alike.

 

[fskimospy]

If you were arguing on economic benefit and the joys of federalism then you'd oppose federal funds for CA HST also. When thousands of bridges nationwide are structurally unsound and other core infrastructure is billions of dollars in arrears for needed maintenance, instead spending scarce resources on a vanity HSR project is both short-sighted and extremely unfair to the residents of other states and Californians alike.

No, definitely not. Building out a high speed rail network for the west coast is an economic necessity and it will take tons of time to do. We should have started years ago. The fact that we also have tons of other worthy projects doesn't change that.

What you've pointed out is a larger problem of underfunding for infrastructure. We should be raising gas taxes substantially across the board to pay for this.

 

[theeedude]

No, I'm saying that California should not need to contribute "more than its share" to other states and has the means to vote against doing so. "I make more money than you so I should be allowed to spend communal money on stupid things for myself without needing to justify it" is a terrible way of running either a family or a country. It's also something that Californians should be the first to oppose since there's going to be a lot more money going to fund "Bridge to Nowhere" projects in Alaska or other BFE state that's not California. Rather I would see all the funds raised by the federal gasoline excise tax given directly to the states for their own use. If California raises $10B/year from its gas taxes and wants to spend some large portion of it on a "High Speed" Train (high speed being relative I guess) to some rural inland town then so be it. But asking the rest of us to fund either that train or the Bridge to Nowhere is both irresponsible and stupid.

You had the means to vote against federal funding for high speed rail. You lost.
Even if we got to keep all the gas taxes, why should we spend our gas tax money on high speed rail if we can get some of the federal money we pay to build it? That's just stupid. We pay way more federal taxes than we get back, so the more of our federal taxes we can get back in federal spending, the better. You don't have to like it, but it's money we pay as a state, and there is still left over for moocher states.

 

[K1052]

Sounds like a nice place to act as a hub / stop along a network extending between the north / south and coast / mountains. Would be useful if Las Vegas was connected there. Don't know if such rail can endure extreme heat/cold through the desert.

A Vegas link to CAHSR is envisioned through Palmdale. The heat isn't a problem.

 

[bshole]

If you were arguing on economic benefit and the joys of federalism then you'd oppose federal funds for CA HST also. When thousands of bridges nationwide are structurally unsound and other core infrastructure is billions of dollars in arrears for needed maintenance, instead spending scarce resources on a vanity HSR project is both short-sighted and extremely unfair to the residents of other states and Californians alike.

You obviously don't live in a big city where half of your life is spent in a traffic jam. Try driving in LA rush hour and then get back to us.

 

[glenn1]

You obviously don't live in a big city where half of your life is spent in a traffic jam. Try driving in LA rush hour and then get back to us.

I have driven in LA rush hour traffic. And don't think you'll get on a intercity HST as a means to avoid traffic. Unless your plan is to live in Bakersfield and take the train into LA daily you'd be better off putting your money into LA Metro rail. Or Amtrak's Surfliner if you'd prefer to commute in from somewhere like San Clemente.

 

[theeedude]

Thanks for the pro tip. California really needs those.

 

[OverVolt]

You obviously don't live in a big city where half of your life is spent in a traffic jam. Try driving in LA rush hour and then get back to us.

Simple don't move to LA.

I know it sounds silly, but follow along. Any city that can't be traversed in less than an hour is considered dysfunctional. And LA is one of the worst. The transit costs alone eat the city alive in inefficiency. If you aren't rich enough to never work you probably have no business being in LA unless you like overpaying in time AND money for the privilege of being in a dysfunctional city. So no job is really worth taking there. My opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Simple don't move to LA.

I know it sounds silly, but follow along. Any city that can't be traversed in less than an hour is considered dysfunctional. And LA is one of the worst. The transit costs alone eat the city alive in inefficiency. If you aren't rich enough to never work you probably have no business being in LA unless you like overpaying in time AND money for the privilege of being in a dysfunctional city. So no job is really worth taking there. My opinion.

So why is LA one of the most economically productive areas in the country if it is so inefficient?

 

[PlanetJosh]

The fast train would be better than flying for many. Having to deal with airline check in with security and baggage and all that is just a hassle. And tickets for the new train will still be cheaper at least for the economy/business seats.

 

[glenn1]

So why is LA one of the most economically productive areas in the country if it is so inefficient?

He was talking about quality of life which is far more important to most folks than your "economic productivity" ranking. There are millions of folks who would never live in a NYC/LA type of metroplex just as you probably would never want to live in rural flyover country.

 

[theeedude]

Personal preference, which is fine. It's nice to have a variety of places, some with high speed rail, some without.

 

[zinfamous]

I clicked on this thread solely because I thought PJ had returned. Oh well, necro'd again.

me too. I threw up in my mouth a little when I saw it.

 

[Jerem]

PJ said he was perma banned here. He was at Neffers but the owner got sick of his shit and asked him to leave. Current whereabouts unknown.

 

[Genx87]

When we take in more in federal spending than we pay in federal taxes, you will have a point.

What is this? Complaining about wealth redistribution?

 

[Genx87]

My bold prediction. This will take far longer and cost far more than predicted. People will use it but it wont affect much of anything. Conservatives will claim it is a boondoggle, liberals claim it solved global warming.

Personally, I'd think investing in fiber and getting people to telecommute is wiser use of public money. We have the technology to reduce the need to have people commute to offices. This is a place where public money could be utilized to great effect.

 

[fskimospy]

My bold prediction. This will take far longer and cost far more than predicted. People will use it but it wont affect much of anything. Conservatives will claim it is a boondoggle, liberals claim it solved global warming.

Personally, I'd think investing in fiber and getting people to telecommute is wiser use of public money. We have the technology to reduce the need to have people commute to offices. This is a place where public money could be utilized to great effect.

Haha, truly a bold prediction on the cost and time! A high speed rail system for the west coast could really make a huge difference so long as they eventually connect it so that the Bay Area, LA, San Diego, and Vegas have access to it. That would be awesome. We'll see what actually happens though.

As far as fiber goes I'm all for public investment in it but I sincerely doubt that's what's holding people back from telecommuting. Most people that have office jobs that could be amenable to telecommuting already have high speed internet access.

 

[glenn1]

My bold prediction. This will take far longer and cost far more than predicted. People will use it but it wont affect much of anything. Conservatives will claim it is a boondoggle, liberals claim it solved global warming.

Personally, I'd think investing in fiber and getting people to telecommute is wiser use of public money. We have the technology to reduce the need to have people commute to offices. This is a place where public money could be utilized to great effect.

But building fiber instead of railroads doesn't allow supporters to feel like sophisticated Europeans. It also solves a problem progressives don't want solved, namely an artificially high amount of business travel which is just as big a deal as local commutes. If you prioritize fiber and teleconferencing then you ruin the fun of getting to go to other cities for things like Global Warming Conferences. You'd be killing the golden goose if you denied them the right to jet to Geneva or take HST up to SF on the government or company expense account.

 

[fskimospy]

But building fiber instead of railroads doesn't allow supporters to feel like sophisticated Europeans. It also solves a problem progressives don't want solved, namely an artificially high amount of business travel which is just as big a deal as local commutes. If you prioritize fiber and teleconferencing then you ruin the fun of getting to go to other cities for things like Global Warming Conferences. You'd be killing the golden goose if you denied them the right to jet to Geneva or take HST up to SF on the government or company expense account.

What gave you guys the idea that lack of internet access or insufficient internet speed is what is stopping people from telecommuting? This is total nonsense. Businesses haven't embraced telecommuting because of (wrong) concerns about security and the mistaken idea that meetings and such need to be done face to face. Building more fiber solves none of these problems, which are cultural and not technological.

I love how you're arguing against high speed rail, which solves real problems, by complaining that liberals aren't attempting to solve a different problem in an illogical way. If you want to build more fiber I'm there with you, but if you're building it because you think it's somehow going to make people who aren't telecommuting suddenly telecommute then you're off in fantasy land.