Leftist California Has Highest Poverty Rate in America

[Wry Catcher]

I IS FLOORED-------pictures of California always show GORGEOUS homes----with swimming pools and ----terrific vistas of lush green----and orchards and stuff that could support huge populations--------where do they hide the slums?

There is also no mention of CA contains the hottest non-Volcanic location on the planet: Death Valley.

Death valley can be gorgeous in the spring, late fall and winter. It is very hot In the summer but so is Arizona, few people go to DV then, and 4.5 million people live and work in the Phoenix Metro Area year around.

It might surprise you that there are no "slums" in CA as you imagine them. There are enclaves of areas in urban areas you might not want to venture into - crime and drug ridden mostly - but no shanty towns one might see in other nations do not exist. Building codes are usually enforced to protect against fire, disease and infestations of rodents; homelessness is a problem, but they are mostly inhabited by the drug addicts, alcoholics and surprisingly a large number of working people who choose to pitch a tent and not pay rent. Most urban governments monitor these regularly and the inhabitants are moved along on a regular basis.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe it has more to do with "greater mobility" by some market participants.

California has experienced waves of migration....

Source: Economy of California - Wikipedia

It is only relative, not structural. Real estate could be improved via government sponsorship.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Sort of. The population density of the US and Europe is near the same if you eliminate the deserts in the west, great plains, and great expanse of Alaska with little or no population. A high speed rail system would connect only major population centers and cities on the route.

The development of the Interstate Highway System and expressways, killed passenger traffic on much of America's railways. The development of America's highway system certainly helped American economic growth in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Today as our highways system have become clogged with traffic, it's hindering growth. It's too late to build a comprehensive rail system in America. That train has long left the station. However, we certain can provide limited high speed rail where practical.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

 

[Weatherman2020]

"California has more income inequality than most states, and certain cities in particular stand out in terms of the income gaps. In these 100 cities, the wealthiest fifth of households collectively earn about 55 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth earn about 3 percent of the income, census figures show."

Read more here: See the California cities with the most income inequality

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

Your ignorance once again dominates this post. Assuming one lives or works a highway drive to SFO, during the commute it might take more than an hour; the flight to LAX is around 90 minutes, and getting to a rental car there can take 30-45 minutes, and then the drive in the LA Basin is at best tedious.

Anyone who has traveled in Europe understands the trains are comfortable, not crowed, have seats and tables, large restrooms and the ability to move around, stretch and debark in am area (usually) with immediate transportation by bus, light rail or cab.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"California has more income inequality than most states, and certain cities in particular stand out in terms of the income gaps. In these 100 cities, the wealthiest fifth of households collectively earn about 55 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth earn about 3 percent of the income, census figures show."

Read more here: See the California cities with the most income inequality

Gee, more ignorance who would have guessed. The typical tec worker earns 100k per year, most trade jobs - plumbers, electricians, etc. earn 50-75 dollars per hour+ and minimum wage in CA pays 15 per hours + tips. Local police enter the job at 80k per year and managers earn north of 100k in tec, LE and finance.

Then their are undocumented immigrants who work under the table in gardening/landscaping, hardscaping, general labor, painting, restaurants and various hands-on jobs employed and exploited by private employers.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

we should have a one hundred mile per hour minimum capability as a Standard for any State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

"California has more income inequality than most states, and certain cities in particular stand out in terms of the income gaps. In these 100 cities, the wealthiest fifth of households collectively earn about 55 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth earn about 3 percent of the income, census figures show."

Read more here: See the California cities with the most income inequality

it is why a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes sense.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"California has more income inequality than most states, and certain cities in particular stand out in terms of the income gaps. In these 100 cities, the wealthiest fifth of households collectively earn about 55 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth earn about 3 percent of the income, census figures show."

Read more here: See the California cities with the most income inequality

Gee, more ignorance who would have guessed. The typical tec worker earns 100k per year, most trade jobs - plumbers, electricians, etc. earn 50-75 dollars per hour+ and minimum wage in CA pays 15 per hours + tips. Local police enter the job at 80k per year and managers earn north of 100k in tec, LE and finance.

Then their are undocumented immigrants who work under the table in gardening/landscaping, hardscaping, general labor, painting, restaurants and various hands-on jobs employed and exploited by private employers.

Lamest excuse for attempting to justify how the left have created the nations largest income inequality gap.

As one the leftist Salon writer asked when Trump began reducing the flood of illegals into America “BUT WHO WILL CLEAN OUR TOILETS?”

 

[Weatherman2020]

"California has more income inequality than most states, and certain cities in particular stand out in terms of the income gaps. In these 100 cities, the wealthiest fifth of households collectively earn about 55 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth earn about 3 percent of the income, census figures show."

Read more here: See the California cities with the most income inequality

it is why a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes sense.

And how many got fired for it because businesses couldn’t pay it?
Tens of thousands.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

Your ignorance once again dominates this post. Assuming one lives or works a highway drive to SFO, during the commute it might take more than an hour; the flight to LAX is around 90 minutes, and getting to a rental car there can take 30-45 minutes, and then the drive in the LA Basin is at best tedious.

Anyone who has traveled in Europe understands the trains are comfortable, not crowed, have seats and tables, large restrooms and the ability to move around, stretch and debark in am area (usually) with immediate transportation by bus, light rail or cab.

Flight from LA to SF is 50 minutes. Drive is 5 hours 44 minutes.

Yeah, I want to take a 7 hour train ride instead.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

2.9 million illegal alien invaders, a full one third of the nations welfare cases
Obviously, they use different metrics in Mexifornia to measure their quality of life.
What's the big deal, they all vote Democratic.
"If you vote, you're a citizen." BHO

 

[Slyhunter]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

Your ignorance once again dominates this post. Assuming one lives or works a highway drive to SFO, during the commute it might take more than an hour; the flight to LAX is around 90 minutes, and getting to a rental car there can take 30-45 minutes, and then the drive in the LA Basin is at best tedious.

Anyone who has traveled in Europe understands the trains are comfortable, not crowed, have seats and tables, large restrooms and the ability to move around, stretch and debark in am area (usually) with immediate transportation by bus, light rail or cab.

Flight from LA to SF is 50 minutes. Drive is 5 hours 44 minutes.

Yeah, I want to take a 7 hour train ride instead.

You keep putting up flight like it's nothing. It's hours in line, treated like shit, groped, and prodded. I don't fly even if I could afford to, because of it.

 

[danielpalos]

"California has more income inequality than most states, and certain cities in particular stand out in terms of the income gaps. In these 100 cities, the wealthiest fifth of households collectively earn about 55 percent of the income, while the poorest fifth earn about 3 percent of the income, census figures show."

Read more here: See the California cities with the most income inequality

it is why a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage makes sense.

And how many got fired for it because businesses couldn’t pay it?
Tens of thousands.

Just lousy capitalists who, "could not make it on the back of cheap labor".

State’s unemployment rate falls to a historic low

 

[Flopper]

The problem with the high speed rail lobby is that they want to use it where it is not suitable. A north-south rail line from say Corpus Christi to Minneapolis with spurs to Chicago, St Louis, et al would be much cheaper to build and could run faster than any of the other high speed rail routes already built or normally proposed.

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

Your ignorance once again dominates this post. Assuming one lives or works a highway drive to SFO, during the commute it might take more than an hour; the flight to LAX is around 90 minutes, and getting to a rental car there can take 30-45 minutes, and then the drive in the LA Basin is at best tedious.

Anyone who has traveled in Europe understands the trains are comfortable, not crowed, have seats and tables, large restrooms and the ability to move around, stretch and debark in am area (usually) with immediate transportation by bus, light rail or cab.

Flight from LA to SF is 50 minutes. Drive is 5 hours 44 minutes.

Yeah, I want to take a 7 hour train ride instead.

California High-Speed Rail will be 2hr 40 mins LA to SF.
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

Your ignorance once again dominates this post. Assuming one lives or works a highway drive to SFO, during the commute it might take more than an hour; the flight to LAX is around 90 minutes, and getting to a rental car there can take 30-45 minutes, and then the drive in the LA Basin is at best tedious.

Anyone who has traveled in Europe understands the trains are comfortable, not crowed, have seats and tables, large restrooms and the ability to move around, stretch and debark in am area (usually) with immediate transportation by bus, light rail or cab.

Flight from LA to SF is 50 minutes. Drive is 5 hours 44 minutes.

Yeah, I want to take a 7 hour train ride instead.

California High-Speed Rail will be 2hr 40 mins LA to SF.
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia

If and only if Republican reactionaries don't kill the progress. Imagine, NYC without Central Park, or SF without Golden Gate Park, and you will see in your minds eye two cites under the control of what the future brings under Ryan, McConnell and Trump.

Likely too, Iran and Russian will have military bases on the Moon, and have isolated the America's from space if the conservative had had their way.

 

[Weatherman2020]

But would the fare be cheaper than flying?

Would it be as fast as flying?

With your example in Europe, that would be Italy to Norway passing through three countries. Train travel in Europe is practical because of the size of Europe.

Trains can and mostly do arrive near the destination for most travelers. A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back. To do so one needs a car or a cab, and driving in the Bay Area or the LA Basin is a choir unless one is on the highway between 0100 and 0300 - then and usually only then can one travel at highway speeds and not be caught at some point in gridlock.

Also the West Coast Corridor is relatively flat notwithstanding the Tehachapi's and will open up some Transit Villages for business meetings and conventions. Imagine a 4th or 5th grade class not only studying CA's history but actually being able to see sites along the way to a historic place.

Imaginer too going to Chicago from SF or LA at 150 MPH on the red eye, getting there in 20 hours with a good night sleep in a roomy reclining seat and not cramped in an aluminum tube.

Wouldn't it be great if we could solve the problem of hate and fear and not spend our resources on wars or preparing for wars, and using the money saved to protect our planet and explore our solar system?

Of course, Russians and their media have nothing near what Americans do to lose or gain as a result of Trump being POTUS, so why shouldn't they kiss his fat orange ass.

A high speed rail system in CA for example is very practical for anyone traveling from SF to LA and back

Why would I spend 7 hours in a train when I can fly it in one hour or drive it in 8?

Can't wait until an Islamo loosens a few bolts on the track.
Of course if it gets built by they year 2200 it will not be going fast enough to harm anyone.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-California-high-speed-rail-the-slowest-in-the-world

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

The dream of high-speed rail in California is taking longer and costing more

Your ignorance once again dominates this post. Assuming one lives or works a highway drive to SFO, during the commute it might take more than an hour; the flight to LAX is around 90 minutes, and getting to a rental car there can take 30-45 minutes, and then the drive in the LA Basin is at best tedious.

Anyone who has traveled in Europe understands the trains are comfortable, not crowed, have seats and tables, large restrooms and the ability to move around, stretch and debark in am area (usually) with immediate transportation by bus, light rail or cab.

Flight from LA to SF is 50 minutes. Drive is 5 hours 44 minutes.

Yeah, I want to take a 7 hour train ride instead.

California High-Speed Rail will be 2hr 40 mins LA to SF.
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia

And the cost is over $3.6 Billion with a B of the original estimate - 50% over. And not a mile of track has even been laid yet.

They feed you idiots bullshit and you chow it down every time.

How many stops is it going to make between LA and SF?

Do the math, moron.

No one will ever see it.

California high-speed rail blows past another deadline – Orange County Register

 

[Harry Dresden]

Under Republican leadership California was #1 in economic opportunities, #1 in schools and as a world economy was ranked #6. Democrats are riding the carcass and California is ranked last in economic opportunities, #45 in schools and dropped to #7 as a world economy.

One out of every fivel Californians now live below the poverty level.

Color me shocked.

Sky-high housing costs make California the country's poorest state

Very wealthy area dear...I live right next to silicon valley .
Also the schools were the best in the land until Ronald Reagan was Governor.

Sent from my XT1575 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

i lived there when Reagan was governor,was in HS....the state at that time was top 5....started going downhill in the 80's....

 

[Tax Man]

Under Republican leadership California was #1 in economic opportunities, #1 in schools and as a world economy was ranked #6. Democrats are riding the carcass and California is ranked last in economic opportunities, #45 in schools and dropped to #7 as a world economy.

One out of every fivel Californians now live below the poverty level.

Color me shocked.

Sky-high housing costs make California the country's poorest state

Very wealthy area dear...I live right next to silicon valley .
Also the schools were the best in the land until Ronald Reagan was Governor.

Sent from my XT1575 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

i lived there when Reagan was governor,was in HS....the state at that time was top 5....started going downhill in the 80's....

Thank ray Goon.