Kalifornia wants high speed rail guess what that means? Your Going to Pay for it.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board almost got the big picture on the state's high-speed rail plan this week. The editors decried the sadly predictable results of sinking vast amounts of money into government boondoggles, with consequences including political decisions on routing and location, spiraling costs, and bad management.

California's high-speed rail project has lots of problems, but its most basic is purpose. The project proposes to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco with an express train that will take two hours and 40 minutes from beginning to end. That sounds good in comparison to the drive, which is approximately six-and-a-half hours, when there is no traffic, or the existing Amtrak service, which takes almost 10 hours to go from Union Station to Moscone Center — and uses two buses.

theweek.com...

Related Article:

hotair.com...

So here we have Kalifornia wanting to go all European never mind the fact that other means of travel are cheaper never mind the fact that Kalifornia is earthquake country never mind the billions of budget deficit's they want their little train.

With the likes of Pelosi and Boxer and the other Democrat's who just love to throw tax payer monies at born loser project's the chance's of Brown getting Government funds is high.

Personally i think it is a load of bs since that money will come from people like you and me who do not live there and will never use it.This is taxation at work rob peter to pay paul and pay off State cronyism.

This is how nuclear reactors in Kalifornia which has been built near fault zones this stupidity is infuriating. No federal funds should be going to infrastructure they are local and state issues.

Yep K in Kalifonia was intentionally mispelled cause it was honoring Mao.

Originally posted by neo96

Yep K in Kalifonia was intentionally mispelled cause it was honoring Mao.

edit on 14-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

But... "Mao" doesn't have a "K" in it.

Anyway, this sort of bugged me:

Fixed rail as a modern passenger transportation solution makes as much sense as requiring motorcycle riders to carry buggy whips. It is a 19th-century solution for a 21st-century problem, and one that will probably cost us in debt and subsidies well into the 22nd century if California proceeds with its boondoggle.

What would a 21st century solution look like? Flying trains?! Teleporters?! We don't have any sensible solutions more economical than rail travel. Almost the entire cost is front-loaded which means, once it's built, there's minimal expenditures.

Whatever else that makes this a bad idea sounds valid (timing, mishandling, etc) but the method is pretty sound. I imagine the concept of rail travel to be a part of human civilization well into the future.

reply to post by neo96


It makes perfect sense, right?

When you have a 25 billion dollar deficit already and $700 BILLION worth of unfunded retirement benefit liabilities that they will never pay for - why not keep spending? They're on borrowed time already!

Without attacking their ridiculous spending and out of control union pensions they will never fix their budget crisis, and we know they have no intention of doing so.

California is a shining example of everything a state SHOULD NOT do in order to be successful.

I say better that project than these for instance:
Highway Signs Bragging about the Stimulus: 42 States Spent a total of $1.3 million
Some states have chosen to use all of their transportation stimulus money on real projects like roads and bridges. Others have chosen to spend a great deal of their grants on signs. The state of Ohio spent almost $1 million on stimulus signs for road projects with Pennsylvania spending $140,000 so they could alert taxpayers where their stimulus dollars went, said a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Transportation. Estimates are between $2,000 to $3,000 to supply, install and remove signs for all 365 Ohio projects. My home state of New York spent nearly $100,000 on highway signs until it was shamed into halting its plans to purchase $900,000 more in signs.
OR
HOTB has received a $25,000 stimulus grant to help preserve one job, so it can continue bashing the United States.
*** *** *** ***
Quite frankly, if you look at BART: “Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a rapid transit system serving the San Francisco Bay Area. The heavy-rail public transit and subway system connects San Francisco with cities in the East Bay and suburbs in northern San Mateo County. BART operates five lines on 104 miles (167 km) of track with 44 stations in four counties. With an average weekday ridership of 357,800 passengers,[1] BART is the fifth-busiest heavy rail rapid transit system in the United States.” It is a success and was also paid for by taxpayers. Keeps cars/congestion off the roads, cleaner air etc.

Awesome. It's about time we start bringing public transportation up to the 21st century.

And, yeah, it costs money. So do traffic lights, highways and stop signs.

About time we start updating our infrastructure.

Oh noes! California wants to catch up with the rest of the civilized world!

We had a light rail system installed in my state recently - it's not a high speed line like this one, but it's very convenient and faster than driving to get around the valley.

This entire country should be criss-crossed by high speed rail. We should have done it 20 years ago like smart countries did when we were in an economic boom. It looks like California State law is preventing the city from selling municipal bonds to fund the project.. I'm not sure why.

Anyway, the dude that wrote this article sucks at basic brainworks.

In contrast, passengers have plenty of choices for direct transportation between the two major metropolitan areas via commercial airlines. Not only does the airline ticket price on Travelocity come in at only a little more than subsidized Amtrak fares for a round trip ($138 as compared to $112), it takes less than half of the time to travel that the proposed "high-speed" rail project does — 75 minutes as opposed to 160 minutes. Consumers can save an average of $20 on fares by booking a flight from less-used Long Beach Airport (adding only 5 minutes to the length of the flight), and still have a choice between three different airlines for nonstop service.

He forgets to mention time to travel to the airport, time to get through security, potential flight delays, time to get off the plane, time to pick up luggage, etc. The train will ultimately be faster than the plane for this particular trip.

Based on a lot of what this doof says in his article I'm under the impression he's on the Airline's payroll.

Also, it should be mentioned that the train is a TOLL service. That means eventually it will turn a profit for the state. I know, basic math = HARD!

One reason these quagmire boondoggles get screwed up by the people in charge is because they are afraid of finding a streamlined solution for over the road trucking and slow-speed rail deliveries.

The people transit is a secondary issue.

Can you imagine if the whole interstate highway system had high speed rail service along all routes !

Might actually save energy and fuel at the same time and get everything done faster.

But they do these things anyway to get the money while making sure nothing sensable comes out of it.

In order to have this be a success, many other businesses would have to be bankrupted first.

Think of the unemployment it would create !

reply to post by neo96


I wish they would just annex Kommiefornia from the US.
If they, meaning the state pays for it, then so be it.
If $.0.01 cent of federal money goes to it, then that is the issue.

What a crock...
But, what else is expected from life long corrupt politicians like Pelosi?
Not surprised.

reply to post by Cuervo


CA can do as it wishes with it's own money taken from it's own citizens, but I agree this is really stupid in hard times and certainly does not benefit anyone who does not live there and have a reason for that exact commute. It might benefit a few thousand locals.

Those who use it should pay for it if they want it. Federal funds should only go to interstate projects.

CA has a habit of this kind of nonsense though. I lived in Idaho when they tried to steal the farmers water and divert it through an impossible canal system to L.A.. Thank god the jerks lost in court. They are so damn arrogant they figured they could just take the water from a river system nowhere near them and screw everyone but them.(I'm talking about the CA government, not the people, unless of course you think the same way). The idiots let a massive population form where they had no water. How smart can they be? Progressive States always seem to do the dumbest things. I wonder if there is a message in that.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus


Also, it should be mentioned that the train is a TOLL service. That means eventually it will turn a profit for the state. I know, basic math = HARD!

edit on 14-11-2011 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

Please show me a state that has a profitable public transit system.
Profitable, without Tax money offset.

PLEASE....

I think it's a great idea, if I'm going to be paying for taxes that go towards welfare and education of all the immigrants in LA, I'd much rather my money go towards something I actually have the option of using.

Originally posted by bottle
I think it's a great idea, if I'm going to be paying for taxes that go towards welfare and education of all the immigrants in LA, I'd much rather my money go towards something I actually have the option of using.

No, you will be paying more, for more projects.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TinkerHaus


Also, it should be mentioned that the train is a TOLL service. That means eventually it will turn a profit for the state. I know, basic math = HARD!

edit on 14-11-2011 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

Please show me a state that has a profitable public transit system.
Profitable, without Tax money offset.

PLEASE....

Hong Kong makes a small profit off of their train.

Certain municipalities in the USA have made various changes to their service and are quickly finding that it is possible to make a profit by increasing the bus/train frequency.

You can expect high speed rail to have more passengers than the bus. It is 100% possible for public transit to pay for itself and even provide a surplus - it's all dependent on how well it's managed.

You seem like a smart chap, I'm not gonna give you links. You can just google for about 30 seconds to verify what I've said.

Also, before the auto industry gutted the train industry, in the early 1900's, all the trains were privately funded. Which means they made a profit. They were popping up all over the country until we had that dream to spread ourselves far apart and rely on automobiles and dead dinosaurs to get us from one side to the other.

Amtrak is not government owned, they're still in business. Must be because they are profitable. Aren't they like, over 100 years old or something? Hmmm..

There will not be high speed rail in California.

The route that has been chosen will require many stops and the curves in the track will not allow high speed travel.

This has been called high speed pork.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Awesome. It's about time we start bringing public transportation up to the 21st century.

And, yeah, it costs money.

So do traffic lights, highways and stop signs.

About time we start updating our infrastructure.

............and your going to pay for it yourself right? You're not going to take the money from people who will never use it right? That would be dishonest and unethical right?

Look at who would use it. Locals who commute which benefits nobody but them. Tourists and travelers and that revenue only benefits California. It does nothing to benefit anyone but California so let them pay.

Of course they don't have any money, so it's like a dishwasher living on a tiny wage deciding they want a Rolls Royce. It's just as arrogant and just as stupid.

reply to post by Gridrebel


I agree years ago while working in the Bay area between downtown SF and Concord CA I took the BART daily even though I had a company provided rental car.

It was Much easier relaxing and considerably less stressful than slogging through the SF/Bay Area Traffic behind the wheel of my rental car.

By riding the BART I could begin my work on the train during the 40 minute ride on my laptop computer catching up on emails as well as taking care of mundane time consuming tasks such as updating expense and status reports.

The High Speed Rail system would cost Billions and it does sound like quite a bit but we really need to take a look at our last economic depression and then expensive projects undertaken that we all benefit from today ....

namely the Hoover Dam.

Why ?

As in the last great Depression it would work to create jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans similar to what the Hoover Damn project did for the United States economy in the 1930's.

It would also be an investment in infrastructure in getting us as a nation off of our current Oil Addiction.

But back to your point GridRebel the BART is a prime example of a working modern day rail project ....that is also now paying for itself as the Hoover Dam currently is.


Peace

I like the derrogatory usages of "Kalifornia" and "Kommiefornia" to paint the state of California as communist when the governor for the past eight years has been a Republican... I guess that one broke away from the herd or something.

Arnold Schwarzenegger - Republican - Governor November 17, 2003 through January 3, 2011

And all of this planning took place during his governorship...

The California High-Speed Rail project is a planned future high-speed rail system in the state of California and headed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Initial funding for the project was approved by California voters on November 4, 2008, with the passage of Proposition 1A authorizing the issuance of US$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the project. The CHSRA is currently tasked with completing final planning, design, and environmental efforts. The planned system would serve major California cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, Anaheim, Irvine, Riverside, and San Diego. The cost of the initial San Francisco-to-Anaheim segment was originally estimated by the CHSRA to be US$35.7 billion (2009$) or US$42.6 billion (YOE$)[4], however a revised business plan released in November 2011 by the CHSRA put the cost at US$65.4 billion (2010$) or US$98.5 billion (YOE$). An implementation plan approved in August 2005 estimates that it would take eight to eleven years to "develop and begin operation of an initial segment of the California high-speed train".[5] It will also share tracks with Caltrain and Metrolink using a quadruple track configuration. On December 2, 2010, the CHSRA board voted to begin construction on the first 54 mi (87 km) of the system 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Madera at Borden, and continue on through downtown Fresno to Corcoran.[6] On December 20, with the additional infusion of US$616 million in federal funds reallocated from states that canceled their high-speed rail plans, the initial segment of construction was extended to Bakersfield.

All except for this last bit, which has happened since the new governor, Jerry Brown, Democrat took office on January 3, 2011:

Another $300 million was reallocated on May 9, 2011, extending the funded portion north to the existing Chowchilla Wye (near the city of Chowchilla), so that the train can be turned effectively. Construction is expected to begin in September 2012.[7]

reply to post by TinkerHaus

You seem like a smart chap, I'm not gonna give you links. You can just google for about 30 seconds to verify what I've said.

Also, before the auto industry gutted the train industry, in the early 1900's, all the trains were privately funded. Which means they made a profit. They were popping up all over the country until we had that dream to spread ourselves far apart and rely on automobiles and dead dinosaurs to get us from one side to the other.

Amtrak is not government owned, they're still in business. Must be because they are profitable. Aren't they like, over 100 years old or something? Hmmm..

Amtrak with a "K" is govt owned.

link;

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is a government-owned corporation[1] that was organized on May 1, 1971, to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States. "Amtrak" is a portmanteau of the words "America" and "track".[2] It is headquartered at Union Station in Washington, D.C.[3]

All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. Common stock was issued in 1971 to railroads that contributed capital and equipment; these shares convey almost no benefits[4] but their current holders[5] declined a 2002 buy-out offer by Amtrak.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by neo96


It's a great idea, however it should be the work of a private company.

Allow the citizens to vote on it.. As I figure the only people who will vote for it will be the people that will use it.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


You need to do some homework yourself. Amtrak is a giant hole in the ground they pump money into and it's heavily subsidized. Costs more than flying in fact for a passenger. Without the assistance it would have tanked long ago.

Also most Public Transport IS subsidized. Usually by a local tax or grants from the Federal Government. Some communities use part of the Property Taxes.

If it were profitable private enterprise would have taken it over long ago and we would have no need for the government to pay for it. That and if the government does it, it cost a whole lot more due to the massive waste and incompetence.

Seems like many live in a fantasy world where the government(s) have money trees and Geese that lay golden eggs, rather than the real world where they take the money away from the people who produce it and waste it. California is technically bankrupt and only a fool worries about a new Mercedes when they can't even feed the kids.