California's Costly Propositions (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose: loans, unemployment benefits, buyers)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

You don't need to currently drive. There is already an Amtrak that goes between all the major cities. I have taken it a number of times, it takes just a bit longer than driving. But you can easily work as their are electrical sockets. If you want speed then you can travel by air.

What exactly does a high speed rail give us that we don't already have? Also, I waste way more time on the highways in city traffic than I do when I travel between cities. If you're going to spend the money I would imagine you'd get a much better bang for your buck by spending it on improving city level public transit.

Actually there is not Amtrak between all the cities high speed rail would go through. There is no rail connection between Southern CA and the Central Valley, you have to transfer to a bus in Bakersfield . The coast route takes forever, is VERY late most of the time, and has only one trip per day in each direction. Amtrak is NOT a viable option for intrastate travel in CA.

Airports are becoming increasingly congested and just look at all the trouble they are in. Constantly rising ticket prices and fees are hurting people too

We need more alternatives and ones that don't rely on volatile oil prices either.

[chuck22b]

In the coming year, I think we'll need to have government deficit spending to keep people employed. Saying that, I think if we're going to spend a deficit, then the projects should net economically positive over time. I'm going to vote no on pretty much all of them except 1A... since I believe having better transportation between our cities will net positive over time. If trains were able to travel close to airline speeds, then train travel is far more efficient than air (carry more people and cargo using less energy).

The Union Pacific railways were built ages ago... and are still used to this day.

I don't really understand the energy credit ones though... didn't Congress already pass tax credits for alt. energy?... and doesn't California already have energy tax credits... what do prop 7 and 10 do?

-chuck22b

[Roaddog]

The problem with the high speed rail is that it wont pay for itself, it has a one billion dollar per year maitenance cost so just like Amtrak we the tax payers will be funding it for life, when it first starts it will draw crowds but after the novelty wears off it will slump, people like to compair us with other countries but they do not own the vehicles we do and depend on the rails, we on the other hand don't, if the economy was to get to the point where people could not afford cars it wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have jobs and would not need to travel anyway. The ,ost ;olely people who would use the rail would be state government and they wont have to pay, your tax dollars will pay for them. We need to remember this thing goes fast, it will be a target for terrorists, thus the security will be the same as airports with long waits each time to get on, someone commuting is not going to go through that each day when they can get in their car and go.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Roaddog

The problem with the high speed rail is that it wont pay for itself, it has a one billion dollar per year maitenance cost so just like Amtrak we the tax payers will be funding it for life, when it first starts it will draw crowds but after the novelty wears off it will slump, people like to compair us with other countries but they do not own the vehicles we do and depend on the rails, we on the other hand don't, if the economy was to get to the point where people could not afford cars it wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have jobs and would not need to travel anyway. The ,ost ;olely people who would use the rail would be state government and they wont have to pay, your tax dollars will pay for them. We need to remember this thing goes fast, it will be a target for terrorists, thus the security will be the same as airports with long waits each time to get on, someone commuting is not going to go through that each day when they can get in their car and go.

It will pay for itself, go read the actual report on it b/c it clearly states that. Of course you and others can keep speculating that it will fail but you have nothing to prove that or even indicate that besides personal opinion.

With gas prices rising to record levels every year I don't see how it makes any sense to solely rely on two forms of transportation that are completely dependent on the volatile oil market.

[bhcompy]

it only pays for itself if people use it enough. we still foot the bill for amtrak because they dont have ridership enough to pay for it.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

it only pays for itself if people use it enough. we still foot the bill for amtrak because they dont have ridership enough to pay for it.

But Amtrak is super slow, no one wants to ride it. Plus, my dad says ridership has gone down since they don't sell first class tickets anymore and I can see why seeing as I was sitting across the aisle from a pimp, literally, he was talking to his friend about how all of his individual prostitutes are doing and how much money they're making him. But trust me, if there is a four hour train ride from San Diego to San Francisco, people will ride the train rather than fly. I could fly to Bakersfield from San Francisco to the tune of $800 round trip because the Bakersfield airport is small. But if there was a train running between San Diego and San Francisco, I could get home in two hours on the high-speed rail as opposed to six hours on Amtrak. My dad grew up in San Diego and eventually wants to open a law practice down there with one of his friends who practices law in San Diego but he still has to operate his practice in Bakersfield. So until he has added on another lawyer or two, he would have to go back and forth and he's waiting for the high-speed rail so he can get there in two hours by rail rather than five hours by car. A lot of people would use the train, just because some people like to drive and get stuck in traffic doesn't mean that all of us do.

[Zapparulez]

When in doubt, vote no. On all of the props you mentioned, no no no no no. Just for the sake of saying no. I like the high speed rail idea, but that needs to be shelved until after this economic hurricane subsides. Budgets all over the nation will be shrinking for the next few years, thus government needs to shrink along with it.

[sav858]

granted this is a really bad time to vote on High Speed Rail but if we don't do it now it might never get done and the more expensive it gets every year. They've pushed this proposition back off the ballot two times already b/c they thought the state was in too much of a financial mess for it to be on the ballot, now the entire country is in a deep mess. We should have voted on this years ago.

[chuck22b]

Deficit spending is going to be a necessity in the coming years... whether we want to use deficit spending to create jobs and net economic positive projects or spend it on unemployment will be up to us.

I'd rather have people working on projects rather than having to spend a deficit on unemployment and having people with too much time on their hands.

-chuck22b

[Zapparulez]

Originally Posted by sav858

granted this is a really bad time to vote on High Speed Rail but if we don't do it now it might never get done and the more expensive it gets every year. They've pushed this proposition back off the ballot two times already b/c they thought the state was in too much of a financial mess for it to be on the ballot, now the entire country is in a deep mess. We should have voted on this years ago.

You know, the only spending measure I would consider voting for in the next 10 years would be on infrastructure. Everything else is a waste of money right now.