California's Costly Propositions (Los Angeles, San Diego, Bakersfield: sales, homes, bankruptcy)

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

My only question is if we have high speed rail how will that change who's sitting next to you on the train?

Maybe they'll go back to selling tickets at different levels, i.e. first class, business class, and coach. Even if they don't, the ticket price might be higher than Amtrak to offset the cost of building it. I'll pay more to ride the fast train but if someone is only going from San Francisco to Stockton they might opt to take Amtrak.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

I don't know what to tell you dude, perhaps you are buying the tickets last minute? Its around $250 (no taxes) for a round trip to the east coast so long as you book your flight ahead of time (At least a few weeks before you go). Round trip from SD to SF is around $130 so long as you schedule the fight ahead of time.

Even if you book the fight last minute $250 is pretty expensive.

It is for a flight two month in advance. It is for Thanksgiving though but I am flying on off days too.

I never suggested my vote counts more than yours, I suggested that few people will benefit from this project and its not fair to rob me and others to pay for it. The costs for this project are huge. But really, I don't care that much I can move.

Anyone who drives or flys between CA's major cities is a potential customer and that is a large segment of the population. Just b/c you don't want to use it doesn't mean that is how the majority feels. It's not fair to rob me of my tax dollars to support projects I don't want to see built either, so what the hell is the difference there? I can't stand some of these freeway expansion projects being built instead of rail systems.

When did I say I support the Amtrak subsidies?

You kept insisting that Amtrak was some viable alternative for intrastate travel, which it is not.

I don't know where you get your information from by telecommuting has been on the raise since the notion was created. I'm not sure what you mean by it hasn't caught on yet. Are you expecting it to replace all physical commuting? That isn't realistic. It is increasing being used by employers though.

Having meetings via video conference has already replaced a lot of face to face meetings. As the technology improves it will continue to do so.

I wrote a white paper on Telecommuting for the San Diego Association of Governments and while it is increasing and there are many reasons to use it, but it will not revolutionize or substantially decrease business travel like you think it will. At my company we have tons of conference calls with far off clients but still have to fly out to meet with them somewhat often

What is in it for business? They are the ones that are going to have to largely pay for it. How will they benefit exactly? This train system is not going to help people get to work (oh wait....there is that guy that lives in Bakersfield and works in Los Angeles...), its not going increase efficiency by reducing traffic. Its just a fancy toy.

Increased mobility is the biggest benefit for business and regular people too. Do you realize how many billions of dollars in economic activity is lost each year to congestion on both our roads and airways?? This will help improve the movement if people and goods. These trains can be used to haul freight like overnight mail, which is another potential source of revenue to pay for the system. All the development that will occur in and around these stations. All of the billions in extra economic activity a system like this can spur. The system itself could become a tourist attraction. And yes it will help some people get to work, do you realize how many people commute from the Central Valley to the Bay Area for jobs right now?? Tens of thousands of people do that.

Trains systems sole purpose is not to reduce traffic congestion but is to provide an ALTERNATIVE to it. And it will increase efficiency by increasing mobility.

You want to improve the state? Build light rail systems in the cities.

I agree but how does that help intrastate travel? And don't you think building this system will help spur construction and expansion of our metropolitan rail systems? These systems will need to connect to the trains stations and move people around the metro area. By building this there is even more reason to expand out light, heavy, and commuter rail systems.

[bhcompy]

for 10billion dollars they can buy everyone who needs it a personal aircraft and teach them how to fly it

[sav858]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

for 10billion dollars they can buy everyone who needs it a personal aircraft and teach them how to fly it

yeah b/c that's really efficient and plausible

[ImRandy]

Originally Posted by sav858

I agree but how does that help intrastate travel?

The problem with intrastate travel has always been hitting traffic in the metros, not traffic between the metros. If you spend your money on travel in the cities you address two problems instead of none.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ImRandy

The problem with intrastate travel has always been hitting traffic in the metros, not traffic between the metros. If you spend your money on travel in the cities you address two problems instead of none.

Have you ever drive I-5 in the Central Valley? Trust me, there is traffic in the middle of nowhere. Drive out to Vegas on I-15 and you can see the same thing on any given weekend. I've been stuck in a 30-50 mile traffic jam surrounded by farms with the closest major city 2 hours away.

You're not addressing two problems. Light rail systems don't necessarily reduce traffic but provide an ALTERNATIVE to it. So that doesn't really help intrastate travel that much. A comprehensive approach would to build the high speed rail then all of the supporting light rail systems that help feed into it.

[tangodoodles]

Originally Posted by sav858

Have you ever drive I-5 in the Central Valley? Trust me, there is traffic in the middle of nowhere. Drive out to Vegas on I-15 and you can see the same thing on any given weekend. I've been stuck in a 30-50 mile traffic jam surrounded by farms with the closest major city 2 hours away.

You're not addressing two problems. Light rail systems don't necessarily reduce traffic but provide an ALTERNATIVE to it. So that doesn't really help intrastate travel that much. A comprehensive approach would to build the high speed rail then all of the supporting light rail systems that help feed into it.

The I-5 is a freaking nightmare. Two lanes? Really? And those dumb eighteen wheelers decide to pass each other going only two miles per hour faster than the truck they're trying to pass and hold up hundreds of cars. It's a travesty and I avoid it at all cost, hence taking Amtrak instead of renting a car.

[Kingsnkali]

This endless proposition nonsense must end in California. We don't have the money. It's only going to get worse financially. I'm tired of these easy-to-qualify crap propositions that get politicians off the hook and are paid for by big unions, special interests and agenda NAZI's. And Californians must finally begin to hold our elected officials accountable for DOING THEIR JOB.

The only proposition that has appeal for me is the high-speed rail. That helps all of us. It's long term, it makes sense and it will be needed in the future. We should at least look at securing right-of-way corridors and start the initial planning now.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by tangodoodles

That's rude. Just stay out of California if you hate it so much. I'm fine with how this state operates, thank you. I'm better off here than in Kansas or Georgia where some right wing nut can try to shove creationism down my throat. And seriously, how do you figure all the high tax payers have been chased off? The high tax payers are the people who can afford to live in San Diego, San Francisco, and L.A. There are plenty of people who will pay taxes to live in California. And I'm pretty sure taxes in other states are just as bad. The property tax in Texas, for example, is high. State taxes in different states basically cancel each other out.

I really think you need to travel the country a bit. The high tax payer will be chased off because they are the ones paying most of the tax in the state. The bracket for these people is 9%. Where as Texas has no income tax at all. Taxes in the states don't "basically cancel each other out". Taxes in California are modest if you are poor and extremely high if you are wealthy.

But individual taxes isn't the main issue, its business tax. And businesses get taxed heavily in California. Now, if you are a business and aren't tied to California why would you stay when it means paying millions in additional taxes versus relocating to Washington, Texas etc? The answer is pretty simple, you don't. Businesses have been leaving California for some time now.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

It is for a flight two month in advance. It is for Thanksgiving though but I am flying on off days too.

I'm thinking you got ripped off. I can find fights for $140 right now around Thanksgiving (Even non-stops are $170).

Originally Posted by sav858

You kept insisting that Amtrak was some viable alternative for intrastate travel, which it is not.

If there was a true demand for a train between LA and SF there would be more Amtrak routes. The fact that there isn't more routes shows the demand is low. In Southern California Amtrak is viable method of transportation. The Pacific Surfliner has multiple routes between San Luis Obispo and San Diego every day.

There are already tracks between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, they are owned by Union Pacific Railroad. If a route between the central valley and Los Angeles was desired the state could fund a small expansion of these tracks to allow for 1-2 Amtraks a day. If the demand was there this would've already been done....

Originally Posted by sav858

At my company we have tons of conference calls with far off clients but still have to fly out to meet with them somewhat often

A conference call isn't video conferencing. There are a number of business that haven't caught on to video conferencing. One reason is it requires an investment on both sides of the fence, as a result its growth is highest in inter-business communication. Regardless, these technologies have already reduced the need to travel.

Originally Posted by sav858

Increased mobility is the biggest benefit for business and regular people too. Do you realize how many billions of dollars in economic activity is lost each year to congestion on both our roads and airways??

Yep, which is why I would support an effort to build light rail systems. A high speed rail will not improve congestion where it matters.

You mention congestion in the middle of no where on the I-5. The answer is simple, expand the highway where there is congestion. Personally, those I haven't experience much congestion on the I-5. The highway expansion will cost far less than a high speed rail. But its not as cool....

Originally Posted by sav858

These trains can be used to haul freight like overnight mail, which is another potential source of revenue to pay for the system.

There are no problems hauling overnight mail on the current train system. Why would they use the high speed rail which will undoubtedly cost more?

Really though, most interstate mail is hauled by trucks not trains. A high speed rail isn't going to change that.

Originally Posted by sav858

And yes it will help some people get to work, do you realize how many people commute from the Central Valley to the Bay Area for jobs right now?? Tens of thousands of people do that.

I'm not interesting in subsidizing peoples asinine living choices. Part of the problem in California is that people live too far from work.