The nearly bankrupt state of Ca. has no funding for it. People in Ca. don't use what's available to them with gov. transportation for the most part right now. They like their own wheels.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
California getting crushed in high-speed rail race
- Thread starter Political Junky
- Start date
The nearly bankrupt state of Ca. has no funding for it. People in Ca. don't use what's available to them with gov. transportation for the most part right now. They like their own wheels.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
- Thread starter
- #162
Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
And yet seems to be operating at a loss every year. Having said that,the Bay area is just a small area of Ca. I'm talking about Ca. as a whole.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
If they were successful, there would be no need for a tax. Their ridership would pay for it all.Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
Did you know there is not one major municipal public transit system in the nation that is self sufficient? Even the private contractors get taxpayer money to cover the operational shortfall.
As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable. That's why no one has done it.
Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.
Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.
As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable. That's why no one has done it.
Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.
The lefty "sustainable" agenda has painted themselves into a corner with public transit.
You want EXPANDED ridership on Bart? Take it out over Livermore Pass or past Fremont down to Milpitas and Morgan Hill and pick up a HUGE increase in ridership.. Why can't that be done?
Because it's in conflict with the Bay Area Urban Planning vision.. The goal is to CONCENTRATE development in the Urban area and to REDUCE SUBURBAN SPRAWL.. Leftist planners HATE easy transit from the burbs.. So you'll never see either REAL REDUCTIONS in commute traffic or IMPROVED highways into urban centers..
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
- Thread starter
- #167
So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?If they were successful, there would be no need for a tax. Their ridership would pay for it all.Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
Did you know there is not one major municipal public transit system in the nation that is self sufficient? Even the private contractors get taxpayer money to cover the operational shortfall.
That could cause some serious traffic problems.
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system. I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake.
how about airports? they a mistake too?
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter
In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
Dozens of powerful nations and even far-flung countries on every continent except Antarctica are asking the Golden State what's taking so long to join the bullet train club. The answer could come as soon as this week, when the state Legislature votes whether to start building the $69 billion rail line.
But don't start booking your tickets just yet: California must overcome more obstacles than the countries that have built the world's 10,000 miles of high-speed rail.
Europe has a train culture where gas is two to three times more expensive than it is in California. China uses dirt-cheap labor to build tracks at an alarming rate. South Africa needed fast trains to serve the World Cup, and the Middle East wants a faster pilgrimage to holy cities during Hajj and Ramadan.
California, meanwhile, has high labor costs and strict environmental laws, an awful formula for building a gigantic infrastructure project. We've built dozens of airports and freeways, generating the kind of sprawl and travel options that make a bullet train system harder to justify.
"For every person who says, 'Oh, I just got back from riding the TGV (bullet train) in France,' there is somebody else saying, 'Wait a minute, California is not like Spain or these other places,' " said Dan Richard, who Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to lead the project.
"Having said that, I don't think we can or should be blind to what's happened in these other countries because there are a lot of things to be learned."
<more>
a) Jerry Brown was going to provide executive pardons for environmental issues, yup, he was ready.
b) the costs are so huge that flying is still a better deal,because the costs is so high the price of the project is so high, the rail ticket which was supposed to be competitive to get people on the train and off airplanes or out of cars, as a viable alternative no longer works, the costs are now close to one another there fore the saved time by flying is still much more attractive.
c) the time to complete went to 2033 from 2020...yes you heard that right, the cost went from $34 BILLION, yes Billion to $98.5 Billion, yes, it just short of tripled....in 3 years of planning...
d) Amtrak has a presence here in the state.....why not use that? I'll tell you why, becasue no one rides it.....and, the time to rail from Anaheim to SF by Amtrak is only beaten by 2.5 hours via HI speed rail.....
Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system. I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake.
Tell that to all the truckers in the US.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Simple way to solve the problem. Phase it out. Take the money no longer given to transit over time and upgrade the infrastructure accordingly. Cities like LA and Portland are vastly under vascularized for their transportation needs. If there develops a need for public transit, or the area retains it, it will develop at a fair market price that the public is willing to pay and keep the business in service sans taxation.So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?If they were successful, there would be no need for a tax. Their ridership would pay for it all.Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
Did you know there is not one major municipal public transit system in the nation that is self sufficient? Even the private contractors get taxpayer money to cover the operational shortfall.
That could cause some serious traffic problems.
When the Metropolitan Council was looking at a government shutdown in MN back in the spring of 2011 they informed the ridership what theywere going to do.
1. layoff drivers.
2. rate hike
3. service cuts in hours and runs.
Guess how they were going to do it?
1. layoff all part time and full time drivers with under 2 years seniority, spiking unemployment locally.
2. raise rates 50 cents to a dollar across the board making the local routes 2-3 bucks between rush and non rush and express up to 4 and 5 dollars respectively.
3. End all express commuter routes that bring in the most money and are highest paying with fewest troubles because, and I quote "Those people have cars and the inner city people have no way to get to and from work." Yeah, those same inner city people who stiff the farebox 10 times more often and complain about paying a buck fifty.
So, yeah, what a great way to handle the issue of cut revenues... take away the best revenue streams and drive people away while keeping ingrates and theives who feel they're entitled, instead of doing the world a favor by taking mass transit.
So, I have no sympathies for keeping public transit that's unaffordable for ingrates who think they're owed it. Walk it, bitches.
So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?If they were successful, there would be no need for a tax. Their ridership would pay for it all.Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
Did you know there is not one major municipal public transit system in the nation that is self sufficient? Even the private contractors get taxpayer money to cover the operational shortfall.
That could cause some serious traffic problems.
Do Roads Pay For Themselves?
Highway advocates often claim that roads “pay for themselves,” with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering – or nearly covering – the full cost of highway construction and maintenance. They are wrong.
Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.
To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy – particularly at a time of tight public budgets – it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century. Toward that end, this report shows:
Gasoline taxes aren’t “user fees” in any meaningful sense of the term – The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes...
Highways don’t pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.
Last edited:
As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable. That's why no one has done it.
Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.
The lefty "sustainable" agenda has painted themselves into a corner with public transit.
You want EXPANDED ridership on Bart? Take it out over Livermore Pass or past Fremont down to Milpitas and Morgan Hill and pick up a HUGE increase in ridership.. Why can't that be done?
Because it's in conflict with the Bay Area Urban Planning vision.. The goal is to CONCENTRATE development in the Urban area and to REDUCE SUBURBAN SPRAWL.. Leftist planners HATE easy transit from the burbs.. So you'll never see either REAL REDUCTIONS in commute traffic or IMPROVED highways into urban centers..
You are right. That is the vision. Make transportation so expensive and so difficult that people move from the suburbs back to the cities in high rises. It's what the Mayor of Los Angeles had in mind when he started his vertical living projects in Hollywood. Cities so dense that it's possible to walk or bike to work, or take a local shuttle.
As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable. That's why no one has done it.
Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.
The lefty "sustainable" agenda has painted themselves into a corner with public transit.
You want EXPANDED ridership on Bart? Take it out over Livermore Pass or past Fremont down to Milpitas and Morgan Hill and pick up a HUGE increase in ridership.. Why can't that be done?
Because it's in conflict with the Bay Area Urban Planning vision.. The goal is to CONCENTRATE development in the Urban area and to REDUCE SUBURBAN SPRAWL.. Leftist planners HATE easy transit from the burbs.. So you'll never see either REAL REDUCTIONS in commute traffic or IMPROVED highways into urban centers..
You are right. That is the vision. Make transportation so expensive and so difficult that people move from the suburbs back to the cities in high rises. It's what the Mayor of Los Angeles had in mind when he started his vertical living projects in Hollywood. Cities so dense that it's possible to walk or bike to work, or take a local shuttle.
It's the only way to compete with China. Their workers live within walking distance to their work. Even if our pay was equal they would still beat us.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
- Thread starter
- #175
So you should be all for mass transit.So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?If they were successful, there would be no need for a tax. Their ridership would pay for it all.
Did you know there is not one major municipal public transit system in the nation that is self sufficient? Even the private contractors get taxpayer money to cover the operational shortfall.
That could cause some serious traffic problems.
Do Roads Pay For Themselves?
Highway advocates often claim that roads “pay for themselves,” with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering – or nearly covering – the full cost of highway construction and maintenance. They are wrong.
Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.
To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy – particularly at a time of tight public budgets – it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century. Toward that end, this report shows:
Gasoline taxes aren’t “user fees” in any meaningful sense of the term – The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes...
Highways don’t pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Gas taxes are essentially road user fees. Something pedestrians and bikers never pay for. Mass transit subsidies are from everybody to benefit a few. That makes it a wealth transfer. This is particularly true when mass transit is not even CLOSE to viable due to lack of population density. Not every place has a 1000/sq mile density.So you should be all for mass transit.So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?
That could cause some serious traffic problems.
Do Roads Pay For Themselves?
Highway advocates often claim that roads “pay for themselves,” with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering – or nearly covering – the full cost of highway construction and maintenance. They are wrong.
Highways do not – and, except for brief periods in our nation’s history, never have – paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label “user fees.” Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.
To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy – particularly at a time of tight public budgets – it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century. Toward that end, this report shows:
Gasoline taxes aren’t “user fees” in any meaningful sense of the term – The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes...
Highways don’t pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.
Now to highlight the acme of stupidity, MN just passed a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment requiring that no less than 40% be set aside for mass transit and bike trails. That means, if you look carefully, 100% of all transportation funds can be siphoned off from private transportation to mass transit and bike trails state wide.
Da fuck does bemidji need bike trails everywhere for? Does Ely have the need for a high efficiency mass transit for people in it's area? Roads can go to hell in a heartbeat in MN thanks to the climate. And with this constitutional amendment to their state, they don't have to do a damn thing about it, as long as they fund the bus routes and roads and build bike trails in the twin cities.
Let's talk about a bike tax, or pedestrian tax? When are they going to pay for their portion of use on things they use?
Last edited:
So you should be all for mass transit.So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?
That could cause some serious traffic problems.
Do Roads Pay For Themselves?
Highway advocates often claim that roads pay for themselves, with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering or nearly covering the full cost of highway construction and maintenance. They are wrong.
Highways do not and, except for brief periods in our nations history, never have paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label user fees. Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.
To have a meaningful national debate over transportation policy particularly at a time of tight public budgets it is important to get past the myths and address the real, difficult choices America must make for the 21st century. Toward that end, this report shows:
Gasoline taxes arent user fees in any meaningful sense of the term The amount of money a particular driver pays in gasoline taxes bears little relationship to his or her use of roads funded by gas taxes...
Highways dont pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called user fees by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.
Why? - We are subsidizing roads & air lines already. Adding in rail just means it will take more people off the roads & out of the air increasing the subsidies on those to sectors, not to mention adding in a rail subsidy. Transportation cost will jump up all the way around & so will the subsidies.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
- Thread starter
- #178
Doesn't surprise me at all, they can't afford it but that never stopped them before.
Oh, next time why don't you use a link to where we don't have to subscribe to get the entire context of the article, PJ?
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
yup, its all academic now.....
thread at-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...leg-oks-funding-for-high-speed-rail-line.html
thread at-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...leg-oks-funding-for-high-speed-rail-line.html
Similar threads
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 437
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 516
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 289
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 647
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 101
- Replies
- 8K
- Views
- 53K
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 284
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8135
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-