- Moderator
- #21
The people of California keep voting these imbeciles back in office so they get what they deserve.
California Leg. OKs funding for high-speed rail line
- Thread starter Trajan
- Start date
The people of California keep voting these imbeciles back in office so they get what they deserve.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Moonbeam hates freeways.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Right....They can't afford it even with the federal handout, so let's beat cheeks to get the money anyways.
Fornicalia legislators should patent and bottle this brand of stoopit.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #24
You're so myopic it's all most funny. In San Francisco early in the 20th Century the City leaders build two light rail lines (N Judah & L Taravel) into the Sand Dunes 50 blocks West to the Pacific and 20 blocks North to South (from Golden Gate Part to Lake Merced). With this simple foresight the "Outside Lands" became a viable resource and Henry Dolger and other builders put in nearly 20,000 homes during the boom after WWII.
No it wasn't approved by the voters. What the voters approved was a high speed train from Victorville to Las Vegas. This is a high speed train from Bakersfield to San Francisco. If it wasn't passed this month, the state would lose 5 billion from the federal government that was allocated to build the rail line.
The rail line from Victorville to Las Vegas was supposed to cost 68 billion, but now estimates to complete it are upwards of 300 billion. The voters now oppose that line and would vote against it today. That's why the Bakersfield to San Francisco line was never put to a vote.
Trajan
conscientia mille testes
- Thread starter
- #26
*shrugs*
well, 1) at 430 miles, 3 hours is a pipe dream, no routed Amtrak or train has ever made the trip according to their pie in the sky figures,they do a straight line stop to stop ( sf -la) at the highest speed computation capable by the train , you have slow down sections, stops etc.....
2)the LA Times has been all over this, air fare is approx. $140. if you are a frequent traveler you can get thru security in 20 minutes. I have, Easily. And go ahead and drive to the terminal site for the train in SF, its no better than the airport. The last price I saw that they would consider for the ticket was $80 in today’s dollars. So if I pay someone an extra 3 hours on the clock, so they could take the train, that 'savings', vaporizes. If I pay them to say overnight ...? same , same...except now I am in for the cost of a hotel, meals, etc etc ...
3) the flight time is 1 hour 10 minutes. If I had a meeting, add another 50 minutes for a taxi to where I have to go for the meeting, I could get to LA, be at my meeting an hour in into it, just as the train is pulling into the station ( That is supposing they meet that 3 hour travel time). You can work on the plane, so being productive is not an issue imho.
4) there is still a lot of face to face bis. going on, but business folks are not a staple rider ship calculated into their plan, in the age of tele commuting etc. getting better and proliferating all the time, 3D printing is 5-7 years away in mass….. ( I mean Tele-commuting IS the greenest right) bus. Travelers will not carry that line financially, period.
5) amtrak had a line from Anaheim to SF to las Vegas backing the 80-‘s 90’s, they pulled the plug on it, no one rode, either way or in between anywhere near the numbers to equal the cost of running the line.
5) god knows what we will have working by 2033...thats 21 years with NO additional delays etc…… Their original estimate has slipped from 2020 to 2033 in just 3 years….so, we know that’s a pipedream too.
We will build it and subsidize it so we can say; “ hey we have hi speed rail, look at us, we lead the way”.
Its not a decision based on economics, like the decision to go to the Euro in Europe, its driven by a social/ moral outlook……..
Of course they could always subsidize via taxs, by not being cowards and raising the gas and airport fees to the point where they double the cost really bending the curve cost for a flyer, making the train more attractive BUT that’s means;
a) the ticket price for train stands still,
b) the California legislature would have to raise the state gasoline tax, and it would be huge,
c) its very regressive because it would hit everyone, not just commuters to LA SF etc. so they won’t do it,
d) that also means general funds will have to subsidize it adding another layer of very expensive, state unionized labor into the mix too.
This is nothing more than a bomb waiting to go off.
I can't think of many people in Los Angeles that will go to Bakersfield so they can take the train to San Francisco. Nor can I envision people in San Francisco taking the train to Bakersfield and then doing what to get to Los Angeles? Rent a car? Bus? Amtrak? It's a 4 1/2 to 5 hour drive from Irvine to Las Vegas, taking Amtrak puts it at 9 hours because once you take the train from the Irvine station to Union Station in LA, there is a more than 5 hour wait for the train to Las Vegas.
The initial 130 miles of track for the LA to SF line will go from Bakersfield to Madera. Yeah, like that will pay for itself.
The initial 130 miles of track for the LA to SF line will go from Bakersfield to Madera. Yeah, like that will pay for itself.
Kiki Cannoli
Have you met my shadow?
hmmm...
Proposition 1A approved the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This will partially fund an 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In 2008, when voters approved the measure, the estimate for the total cost of the project was $40 billion. In 2011, the California High-Speed Rail Authority issued a new cost estimate for the entire project, saying that it will cost between $98.5 billion and $118 billion.[2]
The train will run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system. Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes. The system, when built, is expected to carry more than 120,000 riders per day at speeds of up to 200 mph.[3],[4],[5],[6]
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_(2008)
Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,436
- 270
So that's what's holding back the California Economy, no rail between L.A. and S.F.? A better Idea would to have put a rail between L.A. and Mexico!
That's ok, when it's done, Dodger fans can go to S.F. and beat up Giants fans on a more regular basis!
That's ok, when it's done, Dodger fans can go to S.F. and beat up Giants fans on a more regular basis!
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #32
So that's what's holding back the California Economy, no rail between L.A. and S.F.? A better Idea would to have put a rail between L.A. and Mexico!
That's ok, when it's done, Dodger fans can go to S.F. and beat up Giants fans on a more regular basis!
So clever, are you channeling Sniper Fire?
Vote on high-speed rail called 'big win' for California - latimes.com
It is unclear when construction on the largest infrastructure project in the country can begin. The state still needs a series of regulatory approvals to start the first 130 miles of track in the Central Valley. The plan also faces lawsuits by agriculture interests and potential opposition by major freight railroads.
The bill included $5.9 billion — about $3.2 billion in federal money already committed and $2.6 billion in state bond funds — for the section of track from Madera to Bakersfield.
hmmm indeed.
This is exactly how voters got flim flammed. They wouldn't have voted for a train that went to San Francisco to Bakersfield, or from Victorville to Las Vegas. They were told that the trains will go to Los Angeles. And they might, in 100 years or so.
It is unclear when construction on the largest infrastructure project in the country can begin. The state still needs a series of regulatory approvals to start the first 130 miles of track in the Central Valley. The plan also faces lawsuits by agriculture interests and potential opposition by major freight railroads.
The bill included $5.9 billion — about $3.2 billion in federal money already committed and $2.6 billion in state bond funds — for the section of track from Madera to Bakersfield.
hmmm indeed.
This is exactly how voters got flim flammed. They wouldn't have voted for a train that went to San Francisco to Bakersfield, or from Victorville to Las Vegas. They were told that the trains will go to Los Angeles. And they might, in 100 years or so.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #34
If Golden Gate Park or the Golden Gate Bridge were being considered today the same 'Conservatives' who oppose high speed rail would have complained, "no one needs a huge park, no one will go there and hell, we have Ferry's who needs a damn bridge". By the way, the conservatives in 1900 complained about those damn horseless carriages, and years before that the conservatives claimed the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
Madera to Bakerfield?
Wow, that section of track will pay for itself in no time at all.
Who will use that ride, and what purpose would those rides be for?
What in hell is in either of those cities that people would even use a rail line?
California is broke. Entire cities are going bankrupt. The federal government is broke and supporting itself by printing worthless money.
That's the difference. Industry is moving out of the state not into the state. Taxes are already too high and California is a union state. Industry is moving to right to work states. At least, the very least, in 1900 the government didn't buy cars and sell them at a loss so they could get horseless carriages on the street. That's what this rail line compares to.
That's the difference. Industry is moving out of the state not into the state. Taxes are already too high and California is a union state. Industry is moving to right to work states. At least, the very least, in 1900 the government didn't buy cars and sell them at a loss so they could get horseless carriages on the street. That's what this rail line compares to.
Madera to Bakerfield?
Wow, that section of track will pay for itself in no time at all.
Who will use that ride, and what purpose would those rides be for?
What in hell is in either of those cities that people would even use a rail line?
Who is going to pay $100.00 a ticket to go 130 miles? The section of track is bult there because property values are low enough to buy up the land to put the track on. No one expects anyone to actually use the train.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
ICE Arrests Illegal Aliens Convicted of Murder, Child Pornography, Assault
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 0
-
Obama-appointed judge reverses course, rules voter ID law isn't discriminatory in GOP win- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 0
