68 billion dollar high speed rail from LA to San Fran... (Los Angeles: school, community college)

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by antredd

Shouldn't that 68 billion go on reducing CA's debt? I never thought I would be saying this, being a CA native, but I think it's time for me to look at other states to live.

Exactly. By definition, a deficit is where you need more money than you currently have and CA is in tune to 16 billion of it. A bond by definition is somewhat of a loan which taxpayers will have to pay back with interest. That interest is even more money taxpayers need to cough up beyond the basic deficit. Any perceived theoretical payback CA HSR would produce wouldn't arrive until at _least_ beyond 2033 or so, if ever. Many posting on this forum will never see a dime saved by this system.

By any stretch of the imagination, CA HSR will hemorrhage money which could be going to things like paying off the debt, education, etc. Instead CA HSR will go into a sinkhole never to be found again. Can we get some grown-ups in charge and get some sanity to our budget instead of some 60s dreamers who's motto is "I can't be broke, I still have checks"?

BTW, don't bother going down the false dichotomy route of "well if you're not for CA HSR, you don't like mass transit". WRONG. I'm a big fan of Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Washington DC's Metro. I just like mass transit which makes sense. CA HSR doesn't no matter how it is spun. Mass transit in southern CA success is very spotty at best, look at the reasons why and you will see why CA HSR won't fit either.

[miamifloridafan]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Exactly. By definition, a deficit is where you need more money than you currently have and CA is in tune to 16 billion of it. A bond by definition is somewhat of a loan which taxpayers will have to pay back with interest. That interest is even more money taxpayers need to cough up beyond the basic deficit. Any perceived theoretical payback CA HSR would produce wouldn't arrive until at _least_ beyond 2033 or so, if ever. Many posting on this forum will never see a dime saved by this system.

By any stretch of the imagination, CA HSR will hemorrhage money which could be going to things like paying off the debt, education, etc. Instead CA HSR will go into a sinkhole never to be found again. Can we get some grown-ups in charge and get some sanity to our budget instead of some 60s dreamers who's motto is "I can't be broke, I still have checks"?

BTW, don't bother going down the false dichotomy route of "well if you're not for CA HSR, you don't like mass transit". WRONG. I'm a big fan of Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and Washington DC's Metro. I just like mass transit which makes sense. CA HSR doesn't no matter how it is spun. Mass transit in southern CA success is very spotty at best, look at the reasons why and you will see why CA HSR won't fit either.

Got that right again.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

The question is how much more energy efficient is it to move masses of people in block-units as compared to individuals driving their cars ... and is a train more easily managed, and energy efficient, and cheaper to operate than airplanes? And the answers are: yes, HSR is easier and more efficient than individual travel and than air travel over short distances.

You are assuming just going on HSR from point A to B. This does not take into account the amount of energy (extra) required to (a) get TO the station by driving since 99% of southern CA will not be within walking or mass transit distance to get to a station, and (b) having to take a rental car and drive extra distance since your destination will probably not be in that area either. Furthermore, the wait which will be required at the train station or security you'll have to go through may not make this time efficient vs. car. And what if you wanted to take some large items with you?

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Widening I-5 is nuts. It is equally, if not more, expensive [to create lanes to move the same numbers as potential train passengers] ... and expanding freeways never has proven to reduce congestion -- rather it increases use.

Has this been itemized? Link?

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Educating the population is no more valuable than their mobility once educated. What's the point of an educated society stuck in gridlock?

Because we don't have the money. We're 16 billion in the hole and the UC school system plus other school systems are about to take a big hit. At this time we cannot do both.

[Phil306]

It shall provide "jobs" for the first few years. Then, those jobs will become necessary and, as others have said, the unions will come into play. People who complain about state pensions, healthcare, here you go. You want jobs. You want a "tax base."Here it is and its going to backfire on you. 10 yrs from now, NO ONE is going for ride this worthless train and all of its employee's will be on the public dole. Then who is going to pay for it?

Remember, ALL of this is state and tax payer paid. Open your wallets, your idiots of Kalifornia. Myself included, even though I am against it.

[blauskies]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

No. Not quite a stylistic fit ... however that person you refer to showed up with a new screen name on another thread a couple days ago ... for three posts ... hasn't reappeared as I suspect the moderators shut him down. Apparently you missed his rants? Hilarious.

Oh really? I missed that one, was not too active on here was out in the Bay Area last week, had some real nice weather.

[sjnative]

At first I didn't like the idea but now that they're going forth with it, I admit I like the idea of being able to avoid both I-5 and R101 as the former is so boring it's deadly.

I have to wonder how many of the naysayers on this thread- esp the ones in peripheral places like MN or MO- have driven I-5. I've been up and down it enough times that I'd rather take a HSR instead. At least then I can either work or relax on the way.

The big problem as I see it remains- what do you do when you reach the other metro? It's not like there are good public transit sytsems in place in either right now.

I suppose our mega-dollar HSR will cause a call for mega-dollar revisions and expansions of our SF and LA metro public transit systems but I see those as necessary evils, esp as populations continue to expand and if our metros become any denser.

Has this whole HSR project been an inevitability for some time now?

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

1. Always thought the Iraqi and Afghani debaucles were just that. Didn't/doesn't matter who the CIC was/is.

2. Always have a cranky day when there's no balance, especially in the people's checkbook. Remember well the hooting, hollering and finger-pointing about a certain bridge to nowherem Small potatoes compared to a high-speed train to nowhere and nary sound or at least not much of one. Shows just how stupidly and vapidly partisan the sheeple can be.

Sunsweet prunes rule!

So you just criticize everything and denigrate everyone. Any cantankerous fool living in the middle of nowhere can do that and, unsurprisingly, that's usually the kind of person who does.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by sjnative

I have to wonder how many of the naysayers on this thread- esp the ones in peripheral places like MN or MO- have driven I-5. I've been up and down it enough times that I'd rather take a HSR instead. At least then I can either work or relax on the way.

HSR has the same problem as flying: Ground transportation on either end and needing to keep to someone else's schedule. My first choice for a trip like that is to just drive it. I-5 isn't that bad unless you hit it on a holiday weekend. If I'm going to need to rent a car at my destination anyway, I'd rather just fly.

[miamifloridafan]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

You are assuming just going on HSR from point A to B. This does not take into account the amount of energy (extra) required to (a) get TO the station by driving since 99% of southern CA will not be within walking or mass transit distance to get to a station, and (b) having to take a rental car and drive extra distance since your destination will probably not be in that area either. Furthermore, the wait which will be required at the train station or security you'll have to go through may not make this time efficient vs. car. And what if you wanted to take some large items with you?



Has this been itemized? Link?



Because we don't have the money. We're 16 billion in the hole and the UC school system plus other school systems are about to take a big hit. At this time we cannot do both.

Thank god one person agrees with me.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by miamifloridafan

Thank god one person agrees with me.

Doesn't occur to you that 2 for and 100 against might mean something?

[blauskies]

Originally Posted by miamifloridafan

Thank god one person agrees with me.

Before you blast HSR for better or worse, Florida only helped the Northeast and California when it turned down the funds and also shot itself in the foot, according to State reports it lost a potential revenue surplus in the $31 to $45 Million range after a decade of operation. I think someday it will be regretted.

High-speed rail would have been profitable, state report says | TBO.com

I voted for the HSR, I wasn't surprised it was rejected, HSR was more suitable and cost effective to be completed in Florida's flat landscape and it totally goes against Rick Scott's jobs agenda.

The Northeast will be glad to take the money and the jobs with it.

Florida's High-Speed Rail Money Officially Sent To Northeast Corridor

I would rather see tax money being spent on projects like this than on pumping money into another war, let China play policeman now, soon they will surpass the USA as the world's largest economy and they can go play world cop.