Said Governor Jerry Brown at the ground-breaking ceremony for California's $68 billion high-speed rail system.
Yeah, how can you not not afford that?
Isn't it wonderful that after all these years, they're actually starting the darned thing?
And isn't if comforting to know that if it ever actually comes into existence, it will comfort Jerry Brown... if he's still among us and able to walk around and shake hands?
The 142-mile rail line will choo-choo crowds from
ADDED: Ultimately, the plan is for a 520-mile line that is supposed to get people from downtown L.A. to downtown San Francisco. We're told there's "hope" of getting that done by 2029 and also that "The authority needs to speed up the eminent domain process, since only 100 of the 500 land parcels needed for the rails and stations have been purchased." Which ones? Have they got all that downtown L.A. and San Francisco land yet?
My prediction is that these endpoints — without which no one would want this project — will never be reached by the line that's getting started now in Fresno. The only question is when people will freak out sufficiently to abandon the desperate throwing of good money after bad. I feel sorry for California, and I say that as someone who voted for Scott Walker in 2010 on the single issue of rejecting the lure of federal money to build a high-speed train.
It's not that I don't care about the environment. I do! I have a much better solution for California than its huge-carbon-footprint construction project. Stop traveling between San Francisco and L.A. Pick one! You know you prefer San Francisco or L.A. Just pick one and satisfy yourself with all the wonderful attractions and indulgences of San Francisco OR L.A. What are the arguments against that option? Please lay them out, because I would like to see them in writing so I can form an opinion of what kind of an environmentalist you really are.
Posts
278 comments:
1 – 200 of 278 Newer› Newest»Just think of all the work for muralists a la Diego Rivera at each station.
Union guys waiting around as a Moonbeam races through town.
This thing practically pays for itself.
To get from L.A. to S.F. will require ordinary transport out of L.A. proper (well over an hour) to get to the alleged bullet train, which will let you off somewhere that requires at least another hour of ordinary transport before arriving in S.F. It does nothing to lessen the time hassle of getting to/from airports.
Then there's the fact that this won't be built until motorized unicorns come into existence.
This is going to make the Big Dig in Beantown look like the 13-month Empire St. Bldg. construction. Unions will be delighted.
Useless
Yep, Jerry is going to be riding the darn thing so much he will need a frequent rider fare discount card!
"voters are going to get exactly what they asked for."
Good and hard.
No better example of the idiocy of the democrat party and big government.
13.3 billion and counting. Lots of opportunity for Jerry to walk around and shake hands.
It is needed to transport Mexicans to sanctuary cities.
Older politicians are always trying to bring us back to the golden age, the wonderful time when people wore suits and fedoras on their train trips from New York to Vermont, just like Bing Crosby in White Christmas. If we just build the infrastructure, surely that wonderful time will come back. Who cares that there is no demand for it, that it will be vastly more expensive, and less flexible than the current modes of travel between Northern and Southern California. People will learn to love it, and we can just subsidize it's failure to attract enough ridership perpetually. The important thing is that nice rich people with no time or money constraints will get to enjoy their fancy train ride.
For the price of this train, I recently read that the state of California could purchase 82,000 environmentally-efficient buses. It's a canard to think that trains are more green than modern buses. Plus, they are locked into one position, unlike highway vehicles.
When fixed rail systems compete against buses for government mass transit dollars, rail often wins because deep pockets are on the side of rail--the Fortune 500 manufacturers, the construction companies, and unions. Bus makers, operators, and their employees are far more diversified and have fewer dollars with which to influence public opinion and politicians.
What a depressing mess--and how typically Californian! This should set back the pro-rail movement quite a while.
I'm all for improved mass transit--preferably privately run, but anything that gets people off the roads and efficiently moved around is a plus. I'd love to be able to get to work by subway, or go out on the town without having to worry about driving back.
But this project--taking you from one city where you'd need a car to several other cities where you'd need a car, taking only slightly less time than driving the whole way would--is a perfect example of poorly thought out rail. Which exemplifies everything wrong with public projects.
An improved system connecting DC to Boston with only a few stops in between would make more sense--many cities you can get around without a car, and the short train hops would be far more convenient than getting out to airports, and more weather-proof. But California's problem is it's already sprawled out, and connecting one giant parking lot to another isn't going to attract ridership.
It will never run. Ever.
To add to what Amichel says above, Amtrak is a total money loser outside the NY-Boston corridor and Chicago. Massive government boondoggle that continues to live due to inertia, unions, and nostalgia.
Taxpayers in Wisconsin helped build that. We're generous.
Let's assume for purposes of amusement that the project actually costs $68 billion. There were 38.3 million people in California as of the end of 2013 (the most recent figure that I can find). That's $1,775 per resident that taxpayers will pay for this, even if it comes in on budget (and I'd guess that it will cost about twice that much).
"It's a canard to think that trains are more green than modern buses. Plus, they are locked into one position, unlike highway vehicles."
One idea that I'd get on board with is taking the money being wasted on rail projects and investing instead in adding bus-only dedicated lanes on major thoroughfares and highways, building enclosed bus stops with real-time electronic maps showing where on the route the buses are, and putting simplified routes geared to meet existing and projected demand. Mass transit can work, but it has to offer an improvement over driving.
"I feel sorry for California, "
The harm of this much ill-spent money will not be limited to California.
I can't argue.
Coastists (especially in the East) have trouble understanding how big those western states are. It's a three-hour drive from Fresno to L.A.
Might as well build a high-speed rail line between Boston and Washington, D.C. Oh, wait, they already did that!
When California goes bankrupt, Jerry Brown will be a major factor in that development. He s telling Democrats what good shape the state is in while the credit rating dives.
I can't believe they are still pretending this is going to happen.
CA already has great cheap mass transit between LA and SF, and it's called Southwest Airlines.
The Democrats need to do this to provide jobs for all the Central Valley farmers they've put out of business by shutting off the water.
A few years from now: Remember back when we said it would only cost taxpayers $68 billion dollars? Well we were waaay off!
Too soon to tell, too late to stop.
"Taxpayers in Wisconsin helped build that."
It ain't built yet. The unseriouness of this endeavor is seen in their avoidance of the hard land acquisitiosn at the end points.
"It's not that I don't care about the environment. I do! I have a much better solution for California than its huge-carbon-footprint construction project. Stop traveling between San Francisco and L.A. Pick one! You know you prefer San Francisco or L.A. Just pick one and satisfy yourself with all the wonderful attractions and indulgences of San Francisco OR L.A. What are the arguments against that option? Please lay them out, because I would like to see them in writing so I can form an opinion of what kind of an environmentalist you really are."
Says the annual commuter from Madison to Colorado and Texas.
"I have a much better solution for California than its huge-carbon-footprint construction project. Stop traveling between San Francisco and L.A."
This appears to assume that the purpose of the project is to facilitate efficient travel and that its proponents are open to rational argument and evidence about alternatives.
Ha Ha, Ann. You know it's all those evil corporate Rethuglicans that are traveling between SF and LA; between the Silicon Valley and Hollywood. They do it All The Time.
"Gina McCarthy, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said the all-electric trains, running on renewable energy,"
LOL. What renewable energy will they run on.
The Los Angeles to San Francisco market is currently served by Amtrak (13 hours), car (6 hours), and air (100 minutes, not counting security check-in, etc.) The case for high speed rail is very weak.
However the argument in the professor's last paragraph is pretty silly. There are plenty of people whose job takes them from one city to another. In the course of my career I've had lengthy business assignments in Fairmont, WV; Trenton, NJ; Baltimore; and a few other garden spots like that. It happens. Not everyone wants to be a university professor.
I've traveled by train in Germany. It's a good system, but it is used to shake-down the tax payer.
If you read the German papers, then you'll see how they use warnung-striek to cripple a segment of the system, and the union demands are met.
How many billions of dollars per mile is this thing gonna cost?
And with a Republican Congress, will California get even a dime?
See I doubt Boxer, Feinstein, and Pelsoi can do anything to help.
Might end up being a train to nowhere.... like that bride in Alaska.
Hey, my cousin did a mural for one of the Atlanta system stops. And it looked pretty nice. Fat job for her.Big ceramic tile jigsaw puzzle in her basement.
MayBee, assume the following:
1) Gerry Brown is an atheist.
2) Nonetheless, and strangely (for why does it follow?), he wants to be famous and powerful.
3) He's getting old.
So this railway might be his legacy. His name might be on it. Maybe on the plaque above the train. He wants that. He craves it.
Good luck trying to reconcile the wacko environmental greens penchant for telling the rest of us how to live our lives with their pronounced preference for a huge personal carbon footprint.
But of course, since they hold the holier than thou approved liberal leftist beliefs, they DESERVE frequent national and world-wide travel, not to mention a six burner gas range in their 5,000 square foot condo, an SUV and every electronic gadget currently in vogue.
If the environment was the paramount concern here, there's a much simpler solution--raise the gas tax and install tollbooths on more CA highways. It'll discourage car travel far more than enticing them onto a train to nowhere ever would.
Of course, it'll also be massively unpopular, where the costs of this stupid train won't become unpopular until later when they have to be paid by future taxpayers.
"Taxpayers in Wisconsin helped build that. We're generous."
So you are happy with a system of federal spending that tries to strong-arm everyone into doing things they don't want because otherwise the money (some of which was raked out of your state) will all go elsewhere?
We'll make them an offer they can't refuse.
Words to live by, right?
But we did refuse in Wisconsin. And you know damned well by now that we are better off.
One idea that I'd get on board with is taking the money being wasted on rail projects and investing instead in adding bus-only dedicated lanes on major thoroughfares and highways, building enclosed bus stops with real-time electronic maps showing where on the route the buses are, and putting simplified routes geared to meet existing and projected demand. Mass transit can work, but it has to offer an improvement over driving.
I'd support that too. Problem is, these Coastal Liberal Elites would never get on a regular bus--too low class. That's why they need a train.
This whole thing reminds me of the movie "Singles".
The high speed rail folks are missing the key ingredient for why these things seem to do well in Europe and poorly here--overseas, these trains tend to connect walkable towns and cities with their own mass transit systems. Travelers--many of whom have no cars or seldom drive--can get around cities and towns and between the two in those countries.
Here, most of America is car-centric, with cities you can't walk much in and no real mass transit (except poorly planned bus lines in some areas). Connecting such areas by train won't present a better option for most travelers than their usual plan of driving or using planes for longer distances. It might work in the Northeast corridor, but elsewhere, forget it.
As with many things, those of us who live in the real world have different measures of what constitutes a successful program or project than politicians. To us, a successful project is one that meets a real need while coming in on time and on budget.
To a politician, a successful project is one that buys votes to keep getting him elected. It also helps if his cronies and contributors get rich so they in turn will make him rich. Nothing else matters. If the project is late and over budget, that just mean more money is flowing to the cronies. If it's a boondoggle, who cares? If it doesn't work, who cares? They can always implement a new project to undo the damage caused by the old one. Later-rinse-repeat forever.
By 2029, we'll have self-driving cars, right? Why isn't it recognized that what we want is enclosed personal space.
And by "we," I mean, especially, women.
Who wanders around in a train interacting with other people, Jerry-Brown style?
I sure wouldn't. You want to look for friends on a train, then get out in a train station? This seems like a good way to become a crime victim!
(I've only been a crime victim once in my life: I was robbed in a train station.)
@Paul, point of information. The point of that bridge in Alaska was to provide an all-weather connection between Ketchikan and its airport, the only flat ground suitable for a runway being on a nearby island and not on the mainland.
Not that I think they needed the bridge, because it's hard for me to picture a situation where it's feasible to fly from a 7500 foot runway but infeasible due to weather to travel by ferry from the mainland to the airport. Perhaps a pilot can weigh in here?
What's with progressives and their love of wasting money on obsolete travel technology that they'll never use? No one is going to ride it enough to pay for it.
The people have already voted with their cars over AMTRAK, the OTHER money losing transit railroad.
This will just be another tax money sink for union jobs and cronyism.
Seattle voted to replace the viaduct with another viaduct, but the city council wanted a tunnel.
The viaduct runs along the water front, and doesn't generate any tax dollars. When the viaduct is gone, it will be replaced by condos with views of Puget Sound. The condos will generate tax revenues.
The tunnel? The boring machine is broken, and hasn't moved since December, 2013. It was supposed to take a year to fix, but they broke through that deadline at Christmas, 2014, and no one is willing to offer a new schedule.
Because everyo9ne knows that when you spend 68 billion you don't have, you save lots of money.
"And you know damned well by now that we are better off."
Made me laugh. You do know who you're talking to, right?
"It's not the religion itself. It can never be the religion itself. It's the way it's practiced, the way it is taught, the emphasis those preaching use, the culture it creates."
I suspect a lot of them just want "everybody else" to take mass transit, so the roads are clearer for them in their BMWs.
Right now, the main problems with buses are (1) the routes aren't efficient, with too many stops or needing to switch buses; (2) they're stuck in the regular traffic, meaning you're usually taking longer than driving; (3) the stops are open to the weather, which is grueling when you have to wait; (4) you don't know where the next bus is so your wait at that lousy, unsafe, weather beaten stop can be two minutes or can be 45; and (5) as a result of the above, the only people on the bus are the most desperate, which means some nice poor people but also some real shady characters.
Much of that can be addressed with improved stops, simpler routes and dedicated lanes. Once the bus gets you there more cheaply (parking, gas, wear and tear on the car) than driving, quicker than driving, and with the ability to read or watch videos instead of watching traffic, more regular commuters will take them and decrease the proportion of scary characters to normals.
Anyway, much cheaper than building rail.
And because of the Tehachapi mountains, even a bullet train will be slower than driving.
There's a discussion lately about how, and whether, to understand the motivations behind the Paris terrorists.
It's a useful endeavor. We should strive to understand what's going on inside those heads.
It's easier to understand what's going inside Brown's little head. Also a useful endeavor. He's good at attracting votes. How? He's got stuff he wants to do, like build useless trains. Why?
"SGT Ted said...
Because everyo9ne knows that when you spend 68 billion you don't have, you save lots of money."
Reminds me of my grocery store, which has a "savings card" like most now do. It always makes my chuckle to hear "Your total is $112.34 today. You saved $5.68."
"By 2029, we'll have self-driving cars, right?"
We will never have self driving cars. The whole idea is hair-brained.
Will this be completed before California votes to secede and join Mexico?
Really, this is a train gift to Mexico, in futuro.
Prediction: CA will be part of Mexico before the train line is completed.
This is going to make the Big Dig in Beantown look like the 13-month Empire St. Bldg. construction. Unions will be delighted.
Except the big Dig was Federal pork. This is 95% state funded, or not...
"voters are going to get exactly what they asked for."
actually no. The voter approved bond issue required that the bulk of the funds be available before they start. The funds aren't available. It also required that the permits be in place. They aren't. This is about spending a few billion in stimulus funds before they expire.
This is a stupid F'ing idea, but if they had to start, they should have started by bulldozing through the south bay towns from SFO Airport past Stanford down to San Jose.
That would demonstrate that they had the political will to upset Liberal Dems not GOP farmers. When they could not get that done, and least what right of way they had could be used for light rail of a BART extension at SFO. In other words, the 13 Billion would not be completely pissed away...
At 130 mph the solar panels start to fly off, degrading performance considerably.
Bob Ellison-
Seen on a plaque in Fresno, January 2045
"At this spot, 30 years ago today, Jerry Brown would have shaken someone's hand."
But we did refuse in Wisconsin. And you know damned well by now that we are better off.
It would have been cheaper to build it.
Conservatives and their hatred of trains is just bizarre. They are happy to fork over 100+ million to keep a train out of their state.
The real reason why it was rejected is Walker and Republicans want to fuck over Madison and Milwaukee every chance they get.
Linking metro areas with fixed rails is just a repurposing of old tech. The system has no flexibility or redundancy. Google car over existing roads is the way to go. Efficient individual vehicles traveling over automated highways. The technology could be added to existing highways over time. The vehicles would also have manual capabilities for navigating non-automated roadways.
Rail is a terrible solution. Boston’s North Station isn't even connected South Station.
Also on the drawing board: Zeppelin bases, mule-drawn canal boats, stagecoaches.
If it is to be a high-speed train, there can't be stations.
That negates the whole idea.
@Ann
I sure wouldn't. You want to look for friends on a train, then get out in a train station? This seems like a good way to become a crime victim!
(I've only been a crime victim once in my life: I was robbed in a train station.)
Train stations are areas where robbers and thieves find lots of easy victims.
They are high-traffic areas where lots of strangers pass through every half hour. They are also areas where many people stand around for a time, or follow predictable paths.
Criminals intent on theft/robbery follow other tactics in cities without train stations.
But cities with train stations put more people into high-risk locations every day.
garage mahal said...
Conservatives and their hatred of trains is just bizarre.
GM, My dad worked for the Western Pacific for 40 years, I'm conservative and love trains. I ride them in Europe, I made the mistake of taking AMTRAK from Denver to SF a few years ago.
The problems in the US are two fold. Distance and right of way.
If high speed trains have a place in the US, it's from Boston to DC. Start by bulldozing those blue cities and laying out a high speed right of way. Not sharing tracks with CSX freights...
HSR in Fresno is delusional on so many levels...
"I have traveled widely in Fresno." Said nobody ever.
To be honest, the train between Boston and NYC is the best method of travel, because it is downtown to downtown.
We can afford thousands of miles of tracks for men-caused disasters. We can afford luxurious cabins for holdups. We are Californians, we are nostalgic for the golden days of the Wild West.
We cannot Not afford to payoff Brown's billionaire contributors who hold the contracts to build the tracks and supply the rail cars. We cannot Not afford to pay off union workers who build the rails. We cannot Not afford to hire a lot more union workers to run the cars, to secure the trains and tracks.
The one time I rode the TGV from London to Paris, I felt like a super villain, because I had a whole train car to myself. But I am sure the demand for travel between LA and SF is much higher than between London and Paris.
The optical effects of traveling that fast on the ground are pretty cool. Cars driving on the highway appear frozen in place.
All these advocates of high-speed rail seem to forget that it requires mass transit to be available at each station.
Here's this 142-mile line from Fresno to Bakersfield. Suppose I need to travel to Bakersfield and stay there a few days on business.
So I take the train from Fresno to Bakersfield and get off the train at the Bakersfield station.
Now how do I get from the Bakersfield station to my hotel? And from there to my business meeting?
I'll have to *rent a car* at the Bakersfield station. And that's going to cost me more than if I just drove my own car from Fresno to Bakersfield and used it to get around Bakersfield.
I don't feel one bit sorry for California. I left there. So should everyone else if they value freedom.
The people get the government they deserve. If you elect MoonBeam, you get trains. And lose your guns.
Pick one
If you like trains, pick Fresno so you can ride north and south.
"LOL. What renewable energy will they run on."
-- Other people's money is renewable.
nongoverment estimates of HS rail users on the line as laid out range from 5 to 18 people per day.
$68 billion....
Linking metro areas with fixed rails is just a repurposing of old tech. The system has no flexibility or redundancy. Google car over existing roads is the way to go.
It is like packet switched vs circuit switched communications traffic. There is a reason that VoIP dominates communications, efficient use of resources.
"It's not that expensive..." Words rarely uttered by someone spending his own money.
MadAsHell,
You forgot to add that the stuck tunnel borer in Seattle looks to be causing the ground above the tunnel to settle at an unsafe rate. There is a fear that the buildings above may suffer structural damage if something isn't done soon.
Jerry Brown is banking on the same thing all our geriatric political class is bankibg on, t5hat they'll be dead or retired before everything they've jerry-built comes crashing down...
Conservatives and their hatred of trains is just bizarre.
what is bizarre is that you can type but can't think.
Conservatives are all for trains that can pay for themselves.
There is not one high speed rail system in the world that pays for itself.
"It would have been cheaper to build it."
The more you spend, the more you save!
Brando,
One idea that I'd get on board with is taking the money being wasted on rail projects and investing instead in adding bus-only dedicated lanes on major thoroughfares and highways, building enclosed bus stops with real-time electronic maps showing where on the route the buses are, and putting simplified routes geared to meet existing and projected demand.
There are bus systems that do a bit of that. Some of San Francisco's MUNI stops give you the time till the next bus. (Not always accurate, but better than nothing.) Here in Salem (OR) the majority of the buses converge on a place in downtown that's a bit like an airport terminal -- every bus has a specific berth, and there are big electronic boards giving the minutes till each bus's departure. It's pretty cool, and works well.
Of course, it would be nice if there were, well, more buses. As in (for starters) any buses at all on weekends. Or any that come within a hilly 25-minute walk from my house ...
But the central problem with buses is that they scream "down-market." They may be snazzy and well-upholstered and run entirely on natural gas and whatever else you like, but at the end of the day it's just a big, communal car over whose route you have no control. Sure, so's a train, but there the route is fixed by the rails. I think the indignity of a bus is that it could go anywhere you want it to, but it still doesn't. Well, that and it's cheap, which is to say that the Great Unwashed is liable to sit down right next to you.
The bus is best way from Boston to NYC. It's also downtown to downtown, and a lot cheaper than the train.
richard mcenroe,
[...] that they'll be dead or retired before everything they've jerry-built comes crashing down...
I saw what you did there.
Good point, Hagar. Right now the Acela in the Northeast Corridor has a maximum speed of 150 mph, but it hardly ever hits that speed because the stations are only a few miles apart (downtown DC, Maryland suburbs, Baltimore, etc.).
Even at maximum speed it would take well over two hours to get from one city to the other. It'll be that much worse if the trains have to stop in between.
The more you spend, the more you save!
1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!
You'll have these critics say 'why spend all this money?' On the other hand I like trains,
What kind of joyless curmudgeon would nay say that kind of responsible leadership?
But the alternative is not to make San Fran and LA into mutually exclusive islands. Free movement of people and goods is vital to our economy.
Some newer jetliners are good for about ninety seat-miles per gallon of jet fuel. Which is more than you'll get from most trains, even before you consider the difference in load factor (e.g., many of the train seats, but few in the jet, will be empty).
Of course, air travel requires the full-Monty security dance, and airports must be some distance from downtowns.
BUT high-speed trains are, if anything, more vulnerable than airplanes. OK, you can't fly a train into a building, but you can sabotage it anywhere along its route. And as Spain learned, it's all too easy to plant a few backpack bombs on one.
And better downtown-to-airport transportation, although costly, is far less costly than a rail network that includes SF-to-L.A.
Even in Japan (home of those fast but quite costly bullet trains- see https://www.jreast.co.jp/e/charge/ ), travelers mostly choose air travel for longer intra-Japan journeys.
"1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!"
-- Were the billions REALLY a free gift, or like most money from the government to states, did they come with a price tag/devil's bargain attached to it?
Brando has it; if you can't walk to an intra-city train (or subway), an inter-city train probably won't work, as you need to drive to the train station. Driving to a train station in LA is just like driving anywhere else in LA- horrendous.
We can only hope that geological forces will speed up and move Southern California to Russia where it will not have any "conflict of cultures" as to constitutional rights.
"1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!"
That's a myth pushed by the Obamist Left--that GOP governors were turning away free money. What idiots! Why would they turn down money, just to prove a point against Obama?
The truth is that money came with strings--requiring the states to put up matching funds, that the states couldn't afford for those dubious projects. Christie turned down the tunnel money for that reason--it would have cost a lot to NJ taxpayers to match it.
The myth has been pushed to take attention away from whether the amount of money necessary from ANY taxpayers is balanced by the supposed benefit of those projects.
Great point garage.
Why sit idly by while others waste irresponsibly when you can waste irresponsibly too?
Seattle is built on ash from Mt. Rainier.
From what I've read the single profitable Amtrak line is the one along the Washington D.C. to Boston corridor.
Here's what's interesting to me. Along the same corridor, especially Boston <-> NYC, is incredibly cheap bus service. The demand is sufficient to support both.
So here's my test. What is Bus service like between San Francisco and L.A.? Was a Fung Wah Bus line ever even attempted?
California Democrats: Mass transit is the answer to highway congestion, not more highways or additional lanes.
California Democrats: As of 1/1/2015 millions of illegals living in California are now eligible for California driver's license.
California's answer to The Big Dig in Massachusetts. Penis envy costs all taxpayers big time without any enjoyment.
1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Remember the show "Good Times"? They would call what Garage is pushing an "easy credit rip-off." Good times....
"1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!"
No. Rejecting the money was never portrayed as a way to make money. It was a way to avoid getting on the hook for having to spend an unknown and huge amount of money in the future (obligations connected to the project) and resistance to the ongoing coercion and waste in federal spending.
By contrast, the spending of tax money was portrayed as a great benefit, worth the money. That's the ???? here.
One part of the law, as it was passed, said that a certain percentage of the funding had to come from private sources. Not surprisingly, the private money looked at the financials of this monstrosity, and declined to invest.
Now, Jerry Brown has to go around and entice the private money to invest with "guarantees" paid for by us California taxpayers. That's how it'll get done.
No one wants to go to Fresno or Bakersfield, and they sure as hell don't want to take an expensive train to get there.
I've driven between the bay area and LA (well, Disneyland) at least once a year for the last 15 years. Get up early enough and it's not too bad, until you hit LA and then traffic is horrible, but a train isn't going to fix that. If you've got little kids, why would you hassle with all the car seats, strollers, diaper bags, etc. when you can just pack your car once and go?
garage mahal said... The more you spend, the more you save!
1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!
A thought: maybe the Feds shouldn't be taking money from TPs in one state to send to another state.
LOL.
OKOK, just kidding. What am I thinking?
The Drill SGT,
GM, My dad worked for the Western Pacific for 40 years, I'm conservative and love trains. I ride them in Europe, I made the mistake of taking AMTRAK from Denver to SF a few years ago.
Trains are great -- in their place, which is emphatically not CA. The biggest single expense of our honeymoon a decade ago was universal British Rail passes, and man were they worth it. An astonishing thing -- the system had been resolutely privatized, into innumerable little companies with their clutches of routes, but you could still view the system as a whole and connections between companies were all good.
I have a sneaking admiration for AMTRAK. Yes, it loses money, big time, almost everywhere. But it's still a pleasant diversion, which is more than you can say for most alternative means of transportation, especially air travel. I just got back a week ago from MD. 16 hours in toto -- including the drive to PHI, flight to PHX, layover, second flight to PDX, and drive home. Yes, taking that trip in 2/3 of a day instead of a few months 150 years ago is an improvement. But, no, I don't want to do it again anytime soon.
At least Garage admits that it's all about greed and self interest.
I thought there was some pretense of virtue and altruism.
Apparently not. It's just: They're handing out free money and I want mine.
Noted.
But the money wasn't free, so there's also that.
It takes government to do something this expensive and stupid. Private enterprise would never do this because it will never make a profit or ever break even.
Curious George said...
LOL. What renewable energy will they run on.
1/8/15, 9:30 AM
Unicorn farts.
"But the central problem with buses is that they scream "down-market." They may be snazzy and well-upholstered and run entirely on natural gas and whatever else you like, but at the end of the day it's just a big, communal car over whose route you have no control. Sure, so's a train, but there the route is fixed by the rails. I think the indignity of a bus is that it could go anywhere you want it to, but it still doesn't. Well, that and it's cheap, which is to say that the Great Unwashed is liable to sit down right next to you."
That's one of the challenges--if I were in charge of a bus system like that, I'd have to put as much as I could into making the service a big improvement over driving. In some places (like DC) where the traffic is horrible, a bus in a dedicated lane might be enticing enough if you could reasonably walk to and from the stops, the buses ran frequently, and the experience was at least as pleasant as riding the Metro (which is normally packed with commuters, and the problem is more one of needing more trains).
I've at times looked at options for taking the bus from my home in midtown Baltimore to work just outside the city, and it required a mile walk to the stop, and about a forty minute ride each way--compared to 20-30 minutes by car (depending on traffic) and parking at both ends. But a dedicated lane and a straight route from Penn Station (which I live near) would make it an attractive option.
"If you've got little kids, why would you hassle with all the car seats, strollers, diaper bags, etc. when you can just pack your car once and go?"
Where's the gender politics when we need it?
This train stuff is a boy's dream.
Jerry Brown will be dead by 2029. But his impact is sure to linger.
This is a religious faith test. If you can imagine the current serious global cooling and record freezing temperature is "The hottest year on record," then you can get excited over a romantic train running 80 mph through the fields and forests using 1880s train technology powered by 1480s windmills technology.
I blame Johnny Cash for writing Folsom Prison Blues.
I'll be frank.
If we could get the entire state of California worrying about nothing about their Fresno choo-choo, then that would be a massive improvement with regards to their normal contribution to affairs foreign and domestic.
Always gotta look for the bright side, y'all.
Bob Ellison said...
So this railway might be his legacy. His name might be on it. Maybe on the plaque above the train. He wants that. He craves it.
I've heard of a train called the Silver Streak. Maybe this one could be called the Brown Streak.
garage mahal said...
The more you spend, the more you save!
1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Governments aren't run to make money.
As far as I can remember only the Smithsonian makes a consistent profit every year. And some CIA cover businesses.
Thank heavens Governor Walker was able to correct Doyle's $100 Million mistake before it started costing us real big money.
Were the billions REALLY a free gift, or like most money from the government to states, did they come with a price tag/devil's bargain attached to it?
The 810 million for HSR would have paid for upgrades for the MKE-Chicago line. Walker hilariously asked the feds for 150 million for that, and of course was turned down. Now we're on the hook.
garage mahal,
Conservatives and their hatred of trains is just bizarre. They are happy to fork over 100+ million to keep a train out of their state.
The real reason why it was rejected is Walker and Republicans want to fuck over Madison and Milwaukee every chance they get.
Hmmm. You mean that WI paid the Federal government $100M+ so that it wouldn't get a train system? That's what "fork over" means here. Or do you mean that WI rejected Washington's offer of $100M (new money, not WI money, and burdened with all sorts of conditions starting, but not ending, with WI putting up an equal amount itself)? The latter is what I understand happened.
As for Walker "fuck[ing] over Madison and Milwaukee every chance [he gets]," there actually is more to WI than its two biggest cities.
We have an extensive, heavily-used, profitable rail system in the US. It is used for freight. If I'm not mistaken, passenger rail not only is now a money-loser, it's always been one.
"The myth has been pushed to take attention away from whether the amount of money necessary from ANY taxpayers is balanced by the supposed benefit of those projects."
The benefits of the project are the only legitimate consideration; not "they're handing out free money* and we've gotta get ours!"
*Free money that they taxed from us or, worse, "borrowed".
The only reason Jerry is doing is too make some of his buddies richer. Corruption at its best.
I keep hearing Senators talking about raising the tax on gasoline because we don't have enough money to pay for infrastructure for roads.
Hey, dummies, here is 80 billion dollars that could be used for roads!
Ya know, $68 billion here, $68 billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Vulnerability: A couple years ago I read about vandals (or workers) hanging pieces of rebar, bent into U shapes, on the overhead electric lines on some rail lines in France. Imagine hitting one of those at 200 KPH.
Bottom line, I believe that the LA and SF Bay rights-of-way will never be acquired. There will be, however, lots (LOTS) of billable hours logged and paid for.
His argument is basically the Joe Biden one? He enjoys riding in a train, so everyone has to pay for it.
Watch Lawrence of Arabia again and you can figure out why we don't need high speed trains. Blowing up the tracks would be super satisfying to a 'Paris' type terrorist right about now.
The Federal money is part of the "stimulus" to get us out of the 2008 recession, right?
On BBC Top Gear, one of their regular stunts is for one of the hosts - Jeremy, driving some new car - to race the other two hosts - Richard and James, using only public transportation, planes, trains and buses - to some destination in southern Europe. Jeremy, in the car, always wins.
So even in the liberal nirvana of public transportation, the personal automobile is best.
I'm not so enchanted with dedicated bus lanes. When Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority didn't have the money or the inclination to build light rail from the light rail line terminus in North Hollywood to the western end of the San Fernando Valley, they built a "bus way". For a good part of the way the bus way runs on a dedicated road--no car traffic on it. But every time it crosses a public street--well you've got stop signs and cross traffic. It's a bit faster than a regular bus over the route--but the operative word is a "bit" faster.
At least Garage admits that it's all about greed and self interest.
No, it was about screwing over parts of the state they don't like, that don't vote for them, and who they do not want to see prosper. Republicans like Walker want to see people cut off from one another, with no transit options, so people have to accept whatever job they can get to.
Brando,
I just rode the DC Metro, actually, on my visit to my parents in MD. Apparently it gets any number of complaints, but I thought it was fine. Then again, we're talking about a city more than half of which was on vacation at the time.
Buses can be customized no end, by the way, and it's easy enough to make class distinctions. Golden Gate Transit (that's Marin and Sonoma counties, just north of SF) did it brilliantly. At the top were the buses early in the morning from Marin/Sonoma to SF's Financial District, and early afternoon back. High seat backs, individual overhead lights -- you'd think you were on a plane, except that there's legroom, and no one in the next seat. At the bottom were buses serving, oh, San Rafael's "Canal District" (= overwhelmingly Hispanic), or Marin City (= closest thing Marin has to a ghetto). In between, a variety of nicely-calibrated intermediaries. Odd, but not really surprising.
I take the Metro in D.C. every day because, while the Metro buses are unreliable, the trains are reliable.
Most of the time.
Jerry will be dead of natural causes before this thing is completed.
Marin City (= closest thing Marin has to a ghetto)
Tupac, RIP, spent his high school years in Marin City and attended Tam High.
(P.S. the "not robot" prompts are becoming illegible).
garage mahal,
No, it was about screwing over parts of the state they don't like, that don't vote for them, and who they do not want to see prosper. Republicans like Walker want to see people cut off from one another, with no transit options, so people have to accept whatever job they can get to.
See, I don't get this. What has HSR to do with daily commutes? Are you saying that Madisonites should have a fast commute to Milwaukee, and Milwaukeeans to Madison? I mean, it'd be nice, but I don't quite see the point.
No HSR =/ "no transit options," btw.
Do you really believe, garage that "Republicans like Walker" believe that the "high-speed" train was good for the state but they chose instead to "[screw] over parts of the state they don't like,"? Really?
The benefits of the project are the only legitimate consideration; not "they're handing out free money* and we've gotta get ours!"
The trains were slated to be built in a poor part of Milwaukee. That hub would have built trains for the country. But, that would have revitalized that part of Milwaukee. Cant.Have.That.
Any wonder why the economy sucks ass in this state, and, we're 3 billion in the red? What, exactly, do people see in Walker? He's a complete fucking failure at every level. It would be one thing if he actually produced.
Your prediction is a pretty safe bet. There's no way on Earth the rail line is coming anywhere near LA or SF.
At least he's off the "secret routers" obsession for the moment.
garage mahal said...
Conservatives and their hatred of trains is just bizarre.
Liberals and their unbreakable attachments to eighteenth and nineteenth century technologies (windmills, locomotives, subsistence farming, etc.) is just touching.
"See, I don't get this. What has HSR to do with daily commutes? Are you saying that Madisonites should have a fast commute to Milwaukee, and Milwaukeeans to Madison? I mean, it'd be nice, but I don't quite see the point."
I worked with people who actually would have benefited from this thing (travel between UW and GE in Waukesha). They thought it would be nice but most didn't think the expense was justified.
furious_a,
Tupac, RIP, spent his high school years in Marin City and attended Tam High.
Marin City was built, like Richmond opposite on the Bay, as a city for transplanted Blacks during WWII, to build -- I think the Bay Area was more ships than aircraft, but I could be wrong. Anyway, many, many transplanted Blacks, who came but never left.
Marin City has fared a lot better than Richmond, which is an absolute hell-hole now, but it's still economically depressed. Oddly, it shares a school district with Sausalito, which -- no, doesn't actually top out the Marin property values (that'd be Belvedere), but comes close.
"garage mahal said...
No, it was about screwing over parts of the state they don't like, that don't vote for them, and who they do not want to see prosper. Republicans like Walker want to see people cut off from one another, with no transit options, so people have to accept whatever job they can get to."
LOL. Full retard mode today I see. How the fuck does a multi state HSR have to do with accepting a job.
You do Corky that there are existing bus and rail lines, as well as plane and car options.
Full on retard.
"The trains were slated to be built in a poor part of Milwaukee. That hub would have built trains for the country. But, that would have revitalized that part of Milwaukee. Cant.Have.That."
I don't support crony capitalism. It is corrosive to something you claim to love; government.
"At least he's off the "secret routers" obsession for the moment."
We never did garage on the record about the GAB's secret routers.
Bitchtits flails in the wind after getting spanked by Althouse.
Those SECRET ROUTERS have finally pushed Fatwah McHamas lover over the edge. Why don't you leave Wisconsin since you claim it is full of stupid teabaggers who are not as smart as a middle school scholar like yourself?
Ann Althouse said...
No. Rejecting the money was never portrayed as a way to make money. It was a way to avoid getting on the hook for having to spend an unknown and huge amount of money in the future (obligations connected to the project) and resistance to the ongoing coercion and waste in federal spending.
Which is why many states have refused to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare.
For $68 billion, you could buy 300 million round-trip tickets between LAX and SFO.
California is a mess.....
Southwest Airlines provides multiple flights/hour from three airports in the Bay Area (four counting Sacramento) to four aiports in SoCal (five counting San Diego). Already. At a profit. On time. With a smile.
Without the years of impact studies, takings, rights-of-way, crony payoffs and union featherbedding required for HSR.
Revenant: "For $68 billion, you could buy 300 million round-trip tickets between LAX and SFO"
Even more if you factor in volume discounts.
The reality is this is simply another money-losing, makes-no-sense "project" whose real purpose is to funnel as much money as possible from the public coffers through the "construction" front groups and back to the dems.
With some additional skim off the top for the union heads.
Union Presidents need a bigger summer home!
furious_a: "Southwest Airlines provides multiple flights/hour from three airports in the Bay Area (four counting Sacramento) to four aiports in SoCal (five counting San Diego). Already. At a profit. On time. With a smile"
Irrelevant.
The dems don't see a dime of those profits.
Hence this "brand new" liberal "idea" of more choo-choo's that lose (for the public anyway) money.
I don't think people are letting what Jerry Brown said sink in.
In his vision, you are trapped on a train for hours with a chatty Jerry Brown.
I don't care how fast high speed is, it will never be fast enough.
When its just borrowing money and you're already massively in debt, its easy. Nothing gets pushed aside and no evaluation of things like cost-benefit needed. Its just pure politics.
MichelleD:
Debarking in SFO's Transbay Terminal kind of equalized those market-segmented GG Transit buses.
I used to ride GG Transit to Pt. Reyes from SFO back when I couldn't trust my Ford Escort to start for the trip back. Nice ride, good times.
People outside of California should also be aware that this train was initially started after a referendum was passed.
That referendum included several benchmarks that had to be met in order for funding to go through.
Benchmarks on ticket cost, train speed, etc.
Guess what?
They didn't meet the benchmarks. But they want to spend the money anyways.
Oh, and they hugely over budget.
So basically, the train is anti-democratic.
"For $68 billion, you could buy 300 million round-trip tickets between LAX and SFO."
... I never thought of it like that.
People concerned about LA being a car city should know that LA's light rail is actually doing better than expected.
Its not totally inconceivable HSR with a shuttle system to Disneyland area hotels, plus uber, plus metro, that LA will not be that horrible via train.
"The trains were slated to be built in a poor part of Milwaukee. That hub would have built trains for the country. But, that would have revitalized that part of Milwaukee. Cant.Have.That."
Gov. Jim Doyle made that no bid contract with Talgo before the details of HSR money were known from the feds. In short, Talgo (outside of the Wisconsin project) did not meet the federal "Made in America" requirements because the trains were simply to be assembled in Milwaukee from foreign components. Outside of two sets for Oregon and an initial two for Wisconsin, Talgo had ZERO customers from other states. Nippon Sharyo in Illinois won most of the HSR contracts because it actually manufactures (as opposed to assembles) train cars in the US.
There will be a second Empire Builder from Chicago to the Twin Cities and it will have equipment standard to the rest of the trains running out of Chicago, not some expensive orphan Talgo equipment.
Monorail! Monorail!
Barney nails Garage Mahal at 1:10 here.
Travel does not harm the environment in any way. How's that for an answer? Stop being a Putitan scold about things that people like to do that you don't like to do. You should probably be wearing a round head haircut and dressing only in black and white clothing.
"The trains were slated to be built in a poor part of Milwaukee. That hub would have built trains for the country. But, that would have revitalized that part of Milwaukee. Cant.Have.That."
We have a mine proposed for the poor NW part of Wisconsin and mining equipment manufacturers in Milwaukee who employ hundreds in unionized jobs, but Democrats say WE.SHOULDN'T.HAVE.THAT.
The nice thing about the "high speed" part is that the hollowed-out Central Valley poverty will be just a blur to the Coastal Class passengers.
Everyone should drive the Grapevine a few times in their life.
garage mahal said...
The trains were slated to be built in a poor part of Milwaukee. That hub would have built trains for the country. But, that would have revitalized that part of Milwaukee. Cant.Have.That.
Any wonder why the economy sucks ass in this state, and, we're 3 billion in the red? What, exactly, do people see in Walker? He's a complete fucking failure at every level. It would be one thing if he actually produced.
1/8/15, 11:04 AM
Thank God you live in America where if you don't like a place, you are not forced to stay there. You can actually move to somewhere you do like.
I used to move with some regularity, due to work. If I changed jobs any my commute grew to 30 minutes or more, we moved. As I recall, nearly everyone in America has that option, to move for any reason at all.
But the money wasn't free, so there's also that.
And won't be, once it comes time to maintain the lines, trains and featherbedded labor agreements.
Think "free puppy".
"they should have started by bulldozing through the south bay towns from SFO Airport past Stanford down to San Jose."
This is why the thing will never be built. There is enormous opposition to creating a new right-of-way along the peninsula, and the opponents are not poor people or farmers. Even supposing the thing gets built in the Central Valley, it will still be another 1-2 hour trip on local rail from somewhere south of San Jose up to SF. The end-to-end trip will be about the same as driving a car - figure 6 hours.
The estimate of 18 people a day seems optimistic.
Yeah, Governor, let's spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a train system that men are expected to sit uncomfortably in to use.
Sounds like a great plan.
Taxpayers in Wisconsin helped build that. We're generous.
And you seem to be not upset that you were taxed to build something for a different state.
...or do you still confuse government money with "free" money?
...just looked at your link. Yes, you still thing government money is "free" money.
That would demonstrate that they had the political will to upset Liberal Dems not GOP farmers. When they could not get that done, and least what right of way they had could be used for light rail of a BART extension at SFO. In other words, the 13 Billion would not be completely pissed away...
You know, this is a fantastic conspiracy I just thought of, or realized.
The Delta Smelt was the beginning. They realized they needed to save it by taking all the water from the central valley. Now all those farms, which were once thriving, are all dead and dying. Want to build a train through thriving farmland? First you have to kill off all the farms.
Back in 1998 a friend of mine told me the government was trying to take his land. He thought it was because they were going to build a train from LA to Vegas.
Now it makes more sense why they are killing those farms for the Delta Smelt. It's not for the Delta Smelt at all, its for the bullet train from LA to San Francisco.
This seems so obvious to me now, and yet, I'm not a conspiracy theorist kind of person. So what am I missing here? Why am I wrong? Because it just seems so obvious, surely someone else would have said something by now.
Althouse: "But the money wasn't free, so there's also that."
The money also didn't exist (well, maybe it does in China), so there's that too. Neither fact makes any difference to the proponents.
I've flown to LA for business (an easy enough day trip). Flying from Oakland is relatively simple for one person with no luggage. Driving to a train station in SF somewhere not so much. Where the hell would you park? There is so much building going on in SF right now that I can't imagine a new train station/long term parking being at all fiscally attractive when the land could be used to build the new headquarters for some dot com or high end condos for the dot com employees.
Speaking of Soutwest Airlines, the best part of arriving in LAX from the Bay Area by air was the Rhino Chasers pub outlet by Gate 1 in the Southwest Terminal. Start off a weekend visit or begin a workweek return tossing back craft beers with one's hosts. Who cared about infrequent delays?
Good times. Place is gone now.
The Delta Smelt was the beginning. They realized they needed to save it by taking all the water from the central valley. Now all those farms, which were once thriving, are all dead and dying. Want to build a train through thriving farmland? First you have to kill off all the farms.
Conspiracy? See "Owens Valley Water Wars". Also, watch "Chinatown" again.
"I just rode the DC Metro, actually, on my visit to my parents in MD. Apparently it gets any number of complaints, but I thought it was fine. Then again, we're talking about a city more than half of which was on vacation at the time."
I'm actually a big fan of DC's Metrorail system--I've used it for commutes as well as off-peak, and while it can be a crush during peak hours (particularly on the Orange Line) it was generally clean and reliable, and most places you needed to get to within the city were close to a stop. However, recent expansions have a steep price tag--the system makes most of the money back with high ridership, and as the roads around DC are perenially clogged, I think it's worth it to have that system.
"Buses can be customized no end, by the way, and it's easy enough to make class distinctions. Golden Gate Transit (that's Marin and Sonoma counties, just north of SF) did it brilliantly. At the top were the buses early in the morning from Marin/Sonoma to SF's Financial District, and early afternoon back. High seat backs, individual overhead lights -- you'd think you were on a plane, except that there's legroom, and no one in the next seat. At the bottom were buses serving, oh, San Rafael's "Canal District" (= overwhelmingly Hispanic), or Marin City (= closest thing Marin has to a ghetto). In between, a variety of nicely-calibrated intermediaries. Odd, but not really surprising."
In my ideal world, where I'm Mayor with total power, the city would build the stops and dedicated lanes, and license private bus companies to compete along routes. There could be the higher end buses (wi-fi, snacks, nicer seats) for business commuters, and cheaper options for students, working poor, etc. Allow the market to establish options.
The benefit of "permanence" for rail could be replicated not just by having the dedicated lanes but by built up stops with shelters, benches and computerized bus maps--as the buses became more popular, there'd be higher end development near them the way they had for metro stops.
"The money also didn't exist, [not that that] makes any difference to the proponents."
No, it matters. In fact, it's a feature!. They call it "stimulus".
This seems so obvious to me now, and yet, I'm not a conspiracy theorist kind of person.
LOL, Furious beat me. I was going to tell Eric, he should start working on a screen play for Chinatown 2 (Hollywood only having the balls for sequels these days :)
Why not buses? They're wonderful. They hold lots of people, utilize existing roads, and their routes can be adapted easily.
We have a mine proposed for the poor NW part of Wisconsin and mining equipment manufacturers in Milwaukee who employ hundreds in unionized jobs, but Democrats say WE.SHOULDN'T.HAVE.THAT
Caterpillar said do not depend on them for any manufacturing jobs for that idiotic mine idea. Interesting twist on that. So, not sure what manufacturer you are referring to.
"Why not buses?"
Less opportunity for graft. No legacy.
Don't the make trains out of the product of iron mines? Why, yes. Yes they do.
Is there some way I can get a nickel each time a blowhard politician (is there any other kind?) makes a statement in the form of: "Some say we can't afford X, but I say we can't afford not X"?
Is there some way I can get a nickel each time a blowhard politician (is there any other kind?) makes a statement in the form of: "Some say we can't afford X, but I say we can't afford not X"?
No. We can't afford it. :)
If only there were some existing method of travel between these two points. Perhaps by air...via flying machines, if you will. There could be several locations at each city where these flying machines could land, take off, take on and discharge passengers. We could call them "flyports" or some such. Naahh..that'd never work
Garage,
Use Google to find out the other mining equipment manufacturer in Wisconsin. It has a long and storied history.
And Caterpillar in Milwaukee until recently was a named Bucyrus and they sung a different tune before they were acquired.
There is more to Wisconsin outside of Madison, ya know.
Brown's speech sounds like it came from a poorly-written villain character in Atlas Shrugged.
Why is the party of the future so damned obsessed with trains, anyway?
And I loved garage's link.
"But more objective experts argued that annual operating costs were closer to $7.5 million—but that the federal government would likely underwrite 90% of those costs, leaving Wisconsin to chip in $750,000 annually. That’s a far cry from Walker’s $110 million estimate. In fact, $110 million adds up to 147 years of operating costs at $750,000 per year. And any smart businessperson or investor would say that leveraging $750,000 annually to bring in $810 million is a bargain."
Always good to plan on massive expenditures because the Feds will "most likely" do something. Really, budget planning for best-case scenarios has always worked out well. Why, I bet Obamacare is still deficit neutral, right?
Also, note, the ORIGINAL estimate for the price of the high speed rail system was abour $33B. So, they've doubled it...without building anything or even getting the land yet. And would still require riders to pay significantly more for a train ticket than they would for a faster and more convenient air ticket.
Republicans like Walker want to see people cut off from one another, with no transit options
I checked maps of Milwaukee and Madison.
Shockingly, they have plenty of roads.
Any wonder why the economy sucks ass in this state, and, we're 3 billion in the red?
Turning down $800M in federal money led to a THREE BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT?
The math is impressive.
And, while you're here, any comments on the secret routers used by the GAB? I want to give you a chance to express your outrage.
...also, keep in mind, with the CA project, independent projections had the expected ridership of this train being about 1/3 of government estimates.
Why San Francisco anyway? Sunnyvale makes more sense. As MayBee points out, I guess they figured that they couldn't compete with the Southwest flights into San Jose.
"1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!"
Heh. Garage sounds like a smart human being, but the above makes me wonder. Does he realize that those billions came from other states in the first place?
Always good to plan on massive expenditures because the Feds will "most likely" do something
28% of the Wisconsin budget comes directly from the federal government. Walker correctly predicted people and the media are too stupid to figure out his silly lies about the federal government not coming through on promises on HSR and Medicaid expansion.
Check out the Honolulu light rail boondoggle:
http://www.civilbeat.com/topics/honolulu-rail-project/
5.2 billion bucks, and there are about a million people on Oahu.
Without a doubt the budget will increase dramatically. To get within the 5.2 billion figure, they designed rail stations without restrooms, and made wildly unrealistic estimates of the traffic it would carry.
Also, when there is a large earthquake or a tsunami warning (which occur not infrequently), the system will shutdown. "You're on your own, passengers! Head for high ground!"
LOL, Furious beat me. I was going to tell Eric, he should start working on a screen play for Chinatown 2 (Hollywood only having the balls for sequels these days :)
Too late. The sequel was called The Two Jakes.
Walker correctly predicted people and the media are too stupid to figure out his silly lies about the federal government not coming through on promises on HSR and Medicaid expansion.
Or, more likely, he's just a lot smarter than you. Multiple states have gotten burned on the "oh, surely the feds will help pay for this" thing.
Back when Democrats controlled the entire federal government and were running trillion-dollar deficits, sure, money fell like rain on these sorts of silly-assed 19th century makework projects. Once they lost control of the House and the deficits shrank, the money dried up. Lots of states that were counting on this "free money" -- e.g., Calfornia -- found that it wouldn't be forthcoming.
1. Turn away billions.
2. Send to other states.
3. ?
4. Profit!"
Step three is "retain the billions of dollars you would have spent maintaining the money-losing passenger line in the coming decades".
Passenger rail lines lose money. As an investment, their rate of return is negative. For any investment with a negative rate of return, the intelligent thing to do is to not make the investment -- even if someone else promises to cover 100% of the up-front cost.
These are not complicated concepts, but lefties never seem to grasp them.
Or, more likely, he's just a lot smarter than you. Multiple states have gotten burned on the "oh, surely the feds will help pay for this" thing.
If Walker were truly concerned about federal funds drying up, instead of straight up lying, he would return 28% of our budget back to the federal government. But Walker is only concerned with future funding for HSR and Medicaid. Not to mention Walker did accept over 3 billion for other projects from the stimulus.
What states were burned by the federal government on funding for HSR and/or Medicaid?
28% of the Wisconsin budget comes directly from the federal government.
Grand. Let's just assume you'll get more.
Again, great idea to plan a budget on the rosiest of possible scenarios.
Walker correctly predicted people and the media are too stupid to figure out his silly lies about the federal government not coming through on promises on HSR and Medicaid expansion.
Medicaid expansion requires the state to match the funds. And why would a Republican House pass legislation to support a Democrat obsession?
If you don't have the cash, you don't have it.
Do you think gov't money just falls out of the sky?
Also, why duck the question about your opinions of the GAB's secret routers? It was asked in the post you replied to.
"28% of the Wisconsin budget comes directly from the federal government."
This is a problem that is not solved by taking more of it.
"I saw what you did there."
Michael Dulak Thomson: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Damn subconscious.
"Why is the party of the future so damned obsessed with trains, anyway?"
They're just so damn convenient for accessing the camps...
"garage mahal said...
Always good to plan on massive expenditures because the Feds will "most likely" do something
28% of the Wisconsin budget comes directly from the federal government."
So? What does that have to do with anything?
"garage mahal said...
Walker correctly predicted people and the media are too stupid to figure out his silly lies about the federal government not coming through on promises on HSR and Medicaid expansion."
Does the term unfunded federal mandates mean anything for you? Google it. Medicaid is one Corky.
Maybe we could impress the Non-American Reddit Users by adding a 17% VAT to each HSR ticket?
Question for Garage Mahal. Our major Texas supermarket chain often has deals like this:
Buy an IFC brand package of hot dogs, an IFC bag of buns, and IFC chips; get a 2 liter bottle of IFC brand soda FREE!
I don't eat hot dogs or drink sodas. If I were going to buy chips, I would not pick the store IFC brand.
So, Garage, how much would I save if I went for this deal?
"They're just so damn convenient for accessing the camps..."
Yeah.
So? What does that have to do with anything?
Um, because Walker is reportedly concerned with the federal government honoring its promise for funds, and yet almost a third of our budget relies on federal government funding?
It's a lie, but give credit to Walker, he is very, very good at it.
"garage mahal said...
So? What does that have to do with anything?
Um, because Walker is reportedly concerned with the federal government honoring its promise for funds, and yet almost a third of our budget relies on federal government funding?
It's a lie, but give credit to Walker, he is very, very good at it."
Corky, there are mandates by the Feds. It sucks, but there is nothing Walker can do about it. But with HSR and Medicaid, it's a choice. And he can say no.
You are a moron. Truly.
We still live in a federal system. The federal government is constitutionally limited in the tasks it can perform. It tries to get around these limits (with some success) by bribing the states to do the things the federal wants to pay for, but the state taxpayers do not. There is a reason why it is better for the federal government to say "if you put sobriety checkpoints on your state highways, we will pay for them" than it is for the feds to say "You will put sobriety checkpoints on your state highways. How you pay for them is up to you".
The federal government is the least democratic level of our government. If you give it too much power, it will do its own will rather than the will of the people. To some people that is a net positive.
Im astounded that some people think that the presidency is representative of the popular will because he is the only office holder that we all vote for (or against). This should mean that he is less representative of the popular will. We have a winner-take-all system. Obama pulled together a coalition of 53% and tells the 47% of Americans who voted for the other guy to go fuck themselves. How is that representative of the popular will?
8% of the federal "budget" comes directly from the ether. Either the mathematical and logical law of supply and demand has been overturned, or they are playing a dangerous game of chicken with desperate and less capable nations.
I wonder if their enthusiastic support for immigration exceeding assimilation (i.e. diversity and marginalization) and integration is the result of a compromise used as collateral.
Abort your children. Long live the children!
Choo! Choo! Progress.
"Just pick one and satisfy yourself with all the wonderful attractions and indulgences of San Francisco OR L.A. What are the arguments against that option? Please lay them out ..."
Asks the lady who likes to drive between Madison and Austin, and blog about it on the way.
But with HSR and Medicaid, it's a choice. And he can say no.
Yep, because this dumb sap thinks he can be president.
garage mahal said...
At least Garage admits that it's all about greed and self interest.
No, it was about screwing over parts of the state they don't like, that don't vote for them, and who they do not want to see prosper. Republicans like Walker want to see people cut off from one another, with no transit options, so people have to accept whatever job they can get to.
SO you want to punish taxpayers so your friends can prosper. That it?
If Walker were truly concerned about federal funds drying up, instead of straight up lying, he would return 28% of our budget back to the federal government.
That argument actually made sense to you when you came up with it? Amazing.
>>Why is the party of the future so damned obsessed with trains, anyway?
It's a cargo cult.
The cargo cults built fake runways and wooden stick airplanes, and expected riches to appear, as they had when actual airplanes landed at real airports.
The left sees sees those oh-so-sophisticated Europeans riding trains, and assume that if we all rode trains, we would become sophisticated socialists, too.
"garage mahal said...
But with HSR and Medicaid, it's a choice. And he can say no.
Yep, because this dumb sap thinks he can be president."
Maybe ha can, maybe he can't. But he can and is governor of Wisconsin.
Don't you have some packing to do Shortbus?
Post a Comment