Orange County Register: Hit the brake on bullet train, before we're broke

link

So let's just blow it! That makes sense.

 

Cali should have gone the Acela route, like Washington is doing. The conditions are not right now for European/Japanese style HSR here in the States yet. Instead gradually improve your existing infrastructure (which has the added benefit of helping with shipping), build up ridership (which also lowers costs, the Cascades started out with a 48% Farebox Recovery, it's at almost 80% and still climbing) and then once demand is there then go for the bullet style train in 20 years or so if conditions support it.

Hell, for us, what we're doing will be fine. With just incremental improvements we'll have Portland in 2:30 and Vancouver in 3:30 early next decade which beats both flying and driving. Luckily back in the 90s they had the foresight to buy Talgos (tilting trains) which can go 130mph+.

 

Yeah. The California plan was a huge one for a strained economy. It took a long time to create the America transportation system as it is.

 

How about the govt do nothing. If there is a viable market for high speed rail someone will build.

And no, I'm not saying there's no role for govt in inter/intrastate transportation. However, in a project that no honest person thinks will ever be viable or profitable, the govt has no business committing taxpayer dollars to an endless money pit.

 

But....the people have a right to move freely!

Isn't there a tax on rich people or something you can impose to get this rolling again? What about that there internets? I hear there's big money to be taxed on them internets.

 

It's so cute when one of the richest counties in the U.S. cries poor-mouth. Almost as cute as watching Ward suddenly empathize with a select group of people from a state he has never visited but loves to mock anyway.

That said, I agree with Ancalagon. An Acela-like train would probably have been a smarter move, even though the terrain and the population densities are very different from the Eastern Corridor.

Too bad so much of California's revenue goes to carrying its weaker sisters like Tennessee and Mississippi...

 

Definitely a government boondoggle there.....

 

Wow, g. How many ways can you misrepresent this?

First: how am I mocking the state? I am pointing out yet another example of governmental arrogance in presuming to know exactly what needs to be done regardless of anything else. This isn't just a CA problem. It happens everywhere, Ms. Sensitive.

Besides, you have no idea whether or even how much I've been to CA. It's cute of you to try to paint me as ignorant of the state but it's just fishing. Admit it.

Second: I agreed with Anc that a smaller, transitional form would be a much better investment in transportation expenditures. This is true, particularly in tough economic times. Again, nothing particularly pointed at CA as the whole country is facing tough times.

Third, mentioning other states as another diversion? I thought you hated that. I guess diversion is bad only when someone else does it.

 

Not mentioning other states as a diversion - pointing out yet again that the people who do the most complaining invariably come from Taker States. Your motto is "Cut spending...on the other guy."

Put your own house in order, then you can criticize places where you don't live.

 

As far as not being able to speak until my own house is in order? Well, you just bought yourself an indefinite timeout, didn't you? Oh, that's right. You don't play by the rules. You just make them.

 

All I've done is point out that you're from a Taker State. I'd welcome you to find any threads or even posts in which I've specifically criticized your state.

Meanwhile, it should be pointed out that not only is Orange County the 11th wealthiest county in the State of California (which, in general, is no slouch when it comes to per capita income), it is also the home of Disneyland.

One would think the friendly folks at Disneyland would welcome improvements in transportation that would bring more visitors. Then again, more trains = fewer cars, and fewer cars means they'd be losing some of those $15 parking fees.

Hmmm...

 

This state needs an Anaheim-LA Union-Las Vegas bullet train before we need one that goes to Sacramento or SF.

 

Still no evidence of me saying only cut spending on the other guy? I didn't think so.

Still talking about how wonderful things are? Wasn't disputing that there are some good things there.

I've got a problem with big government shoving wasteful spending down people's throats. You're the one being hypersensitive and deflecting about the particular example.

Go ahead and have the last word on whatever your subject here is because it's certainly not the thread topic.

 

Tell me about it.

 

You'd think that would be a no-brainer, wouldn't you? As opposed to no train of any kind to Vegas, just freakin' Greyhound and that bottleneck in Barstow. The freight lines are already there; it's not like you'd have to build new roadbed or blast through rock...just run a passenger line parallel to the freight lines.

 

I'd be for that simply because the most densely populated part of the state, and hence the most viable for HSR, is in the south. The problem is Nevada isn't in the state and they've already said they'd love to see Vegas hooked up to a California HSR but they don't personally want to pay for it. There was a private company considering building HSR from the high desert to Vegas but they were demanding so much in private subsidies (including land one mile in each direction of the tracks being given to them for free so they could later resell it) that it literally was more expensive for taxpayers then any other option.

 

You weren't always quite this literal-minded. Must be the symptoms of end-stage ODS taking their toll.

Of course you're not going to say "cut spending on the other guy" in so many words. You're going to wave your arms and yell "Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending!" until somebody points out that your state takes more than it gives. Then you'll get quiet for a while until the topic comes around again.

Now, shouldn't you be nitpicking and hairsplitting in some other thread?

 

If you need one so bad and the state is in such wonderful shape then you shouldn't have any trouble getting business / private investment to build one, right?

Go tell Washington where to stick there rules and regulations and reap all the profits for yourselves!!

 

Fuck off.

 

Seriously? It's only like 20 miles from the border to the strip.

 

Thought so. Can't do it without taxing the heck out of somebody, can you? (The group 'you')

Admit it. You want it, but you want it cheap for yourselves.

 

I think you missed the point.

Go fuck yourself.

 

We'd still not have an efficient network of roads, airports, railroads (yep, even those were given massive subsidies in the 19th century including massive amounts of free land) if we relied just on private funding. In fact, EVERY form of transportation has received public money and most of them still receive massive amounts of public money. It's retarded to demand one be 100% privately funded while subsidizing it's competitors.

 

True, but they wouldn't even give the right of ways for that 20 miles nor would the city, county, or state even pay to build the train station. Let's face it, Vegas would benefit from this much more than L.A. would so they need to get some skin in the game if they want it built. Lastly, it didn't help that airlines lobbied the hell out of both state houses to block that train route because they didn't want the competition on the high volume SoCal to Vegas route.

It's no longer about the free market deciding who is offering the best product and instead it's about lobbyists getting legalistic restriction put on the competition to rig the game.

 

Oh, I understand perfectly. You have nothing so you resort to profanity. Gotcha.

 

Not that I approve of what sounds like a disaster but you realise most transport projects are done for economic development reasons, ie make places more accessible and connected and more people start businesses there.

 

Make sense and I'll respond to you.

 

Seriously, that's why I agreed with Anc in the very beginning of this thread. There does need to be the beginnings of a transition to something other than more and more massive freeways.

Eventually, gas will run out and we'll be stuck with a huge investment in infrastructure that does nothing for us.

In the meantime, though, we have to deal with economic and political reality that says we can't afford to replace even a small section of the infrastructure we have with HSR.

We have to bite off smaller pieces and start with less grandiose schemes because we simply don't have the ability to do all of it, especially if costs are going to triple in as little as three years and ridership estimates are going to be so badly overestimated.

And, no, this isn't just a CA problem. It's nationwide. Or, at least everywhere this type of deluxe system is being considered. There are other alternatives that may be less palatable that we have to live with as well.

 

Doesn't look like I'm having any trouble getting a response out of you.