"California Bullet Train Project Advances Amid Cries of Boondoggle" (Los Angeles: contractor, utilities)

[Snort]

Originally Posted by jaminhealth

I'm hearing not even High Speed. What a waste boondoggle. Feed the people who are dying on the streets and in their cars.

Imagine what that kind of money could do to house the homeless, among other more worthy projects.

[pvande55]

If it actually gets built it will be mostly a commuter train from the reasonably priced Central Valley to the very costly Silicon Valley.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by jaminhealth

Whatever that means...everyone is drunk on spending money. And not giving a hand to those in need.

"We shouldn't spend money on project ABC that I don't like, because the poor XYZ people need the money more" is a pretty frequently heard excuse in any project.

Choosing something that only sounds like it might have the moral high ground doesn't give that expressed opinion any more legitimacy.

In this case, having HSR infrastructure would make it possible for people to afford homes in farther away exurbs from job centers. The commute will still take time but at least the people themselves won't have to drive. It may be a more abstract concept but helping people attain affordable homes while maintaining jobs actually prevents folks from becoming needy people. This would also expand the economies of those farther areas, circulating money into more parts of the state; cheaper area that could possibly be more productive (in some ways) with that money than in expensive urban areas.

So the problem is not with the idea of more infrastructure but with the CAHSR organization. Noble expressions about "giving a hand to those in need" is subject to the same potential low-quality leadership that CAHSR had been burdened with. Helping the needy by throwing money uselessly into corruption and incompetence fails the same metric as a productive use of funds in exactly the same way.

So obviously it just comes down to whether one supports new infrastructure or not.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

"We shouldn't spend money on project ABC that I don't like, because the poor XYZ people need the money more" is a pretty frequently heard excuse in any project.

Choosing something that only sounds like it might have the moral high ground doesn't give that expressed opinion any more legitimacy.

In this case, having HSR infrastructure would make it possible for people to afford homes in farther away exurbs from job centers. The commute will still take time but at least the people themselves won't have to drive. It may be a more abstract concept but helping people attain affordable homes while maintaining jobs actually prevents folks from becoming needy people. This would also expand the economies of those farther areas, circulating money into more parts of the state; cheaper area that could possibly be more productive (in some ways) with that money than in expensive urban areas.

So the problem is not with the idea of more infrastructure but with the CAHSR organization. Noble expressions about "giving a hand to those in need" is subject to the same potential low-quality leadership that CAHSR had been burdened with. Helping the needy by throwing money uselessly into corruption and incompetence fails the same metric as a productive use of funds in exactly the same way.

So obviously it just comes down to whether one supports new infrastructure or not.

IF done properly with no corruption, better leadership, etc.

Ain't happening.

[Cabernetkev]

I know that a lot of people are against the train, but the bottom line is that it was approved by voters,and that it would be built in stages as money is available. So not much to complain about since it was voted for by the majority of Californians, who actually take the time to vote that is. With that said, the project is already grossly over projected budget. Better to put it all to a vote again and take our losses.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Snort

Imagine what that kind of money could do to house the homeless, among other more worthy projects.

Imagine if people could hop on a high speed rail from the central valley to San Jose in 30 mins. Well then they wouldn't need to spend 680k or over 3k a month for a 2 bedroom condo--they could by a house for 250k in the central valley and commute to their job at high speed.

Suddenly there's less homeless...

CA needs creative ways to house people due to our challenging geography.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Cabernetkev

I know that a lot of people are against the train, but the bottom line is that it was approved by voters,and that it would be built in stages as money is available. So not much to complain about since it was voted for by the majority of Californians, who actually take the time to vote that is. With that said, the project is already grossly over projected budget. Better to put it all to a vote again and take our losses.

But they voted for 7 Billion not 99 Billion.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Imagine if people could hop on a high speed rail from the central valley to San Jose in 30 mins. Well then they wouldn't need to spend 680k or over 3k a month for a 2 bedroom condo--they could by a house for 250k in the central valley and commute to their job at high speed.

Suddenly there's less homeless...

CA needs creative ways to house people due to our challenging geography.

In other words help a few, and not likely any homeless, and pay billions from everyone and then millions each year since the ridership will never pay the yearly expenses.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by expatCA

In other words help a few, and not likely any homeless, and pay billions from everyone and then millions each year since the ridership will never pay the yearly expenses.

I doubt tea partiers like you will give money to fight homeless. Yes having transportation to high quality jobs allows lower income earners to make more money at City jobs without being homeless or having to rent shared rooms with complete strangers.

The rest of the world has high speed rail why can't we?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Imagine if people could hop on a high speed rail from the central valley to San Jose in 30 mins. Well then they wouldn't need to spend 680k or over 3k a month for a 2 bedroom condo--they could by a house for 250k in the central valley and commute to their job at high speed.

Suddenly there's less homeless...

CA needs creative ways to house people due to our challenging geography.

I can imagine it, I just can't imagine it making any money.