Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#151

Post by ubernostrum »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #129

> The Transportation Department is withholding $647 million in federal grants for a $1.9 billion project that would modernize and increase the capacity of Caltrain. About 65,000 people use the rail line every day to commute between San Francisco and San Jose OK. Just thinking out loud here. $1.9 billion. 65,000 people per day. That's about $30K per person. In other words, you can almost buy a Tesla Model 3 for each p…

In looking around it seems reasonable to assume around 2,000 riders per hour on average.

Nope. Most riders are on the train at the same time most drivers are on the freeways -- during morning and evening rush hours. And that's also when Caltrain runs most of its trains -- outside of the rush-hour periods, they only run one train per hour in each direction, while during rush hour you see a train more like every 15 minutes.

So you do need to move most of those 65,000 people all in a short time period, which means any road-based alternative will just be contributing to the already-bad congestion on the roads at those hours, and will need its entire fleet mobilized during the rush hours in order to try to keep up with demand.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#152

Post by jimmywanger »

Kluny wrote: post #33
davidf18 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.

I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages. Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting…

> We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it.

That fact is immaterial. The fact is that they're breaking the law, despite any other effects.

Would you be ok with somebody living in your back yard if they watered and weeded the garden? After all, they're contributing more to the property than they are taking out of it.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#153

Post by flukus »

JamilD wrote: post #100
masonic wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers Do you have a firsthand source for that, or are you just quoting unsupported media quotes? The one study on that topic that I've seen omitted a lot of Federal spending in CA, such as transfer payments, military personnel, CA's share of defense spending, etc. Remember that CA has had a lot of power in Congress under Democrats, including two senior Senators…

"A lot of power" 2/50 senators = 4% 55/538 electoral votes = 10.2% Compared to: Population = 13% of US GDP = 15% of US

So splitting California into two or more states would go a long way to solving the issue?

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#154

Post by notmtaemployee »

tmaly wrote: post #115
Johnny555 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of Caltrain's locomotives date back to 1985, so they are more like Windows 2.1

You should see the old metro north ones that run from CT to NYC, they are even older.

Which cars are you referring to?? The new haven line M8's are some of the newest rail cars in the country, if not the newest.

I know there are some M2 sets still sometimes used but those will be replaced once the 30-60 some odd bar car sets come in.

Also on a separate note, you really can't fault the MTA here for running old cars, they actually do some pretty good maintenance on there fleets both commuter and subway. Running old cars is about maximizing the invest in your fleet, the average lifetime generally being around 40 years.

It seems the MTA learnt there lesson with differed maintanance after the 80's. Just look at the current state of MBTA to the north or WAMTA to the south (it also helps the MTA has a large dedicated funding stream which allot of other transit properties in US lack)

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#155

Post by aninhumer »

martinald wrote: post #117
tmaly wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should see the old metro north ones that run from CT to NYC, they are even older.

Nothing really wrong with old trains tbh assuming they are maintained and refurbished. The intercity 125 in the UK despite being over 40 years old is still fast (125mph), reliable (engines have all been replaced fairly recently) and very comfortable and quiet, even in standard class.

And in my experience, the 125 is much nicer than the newer Pendolino, which is claustrophobic, dimly lit, and the areas around the toilets smell of piss.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#156

Post by aninhumer »

ptc wrote: post #59
coredog64 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that progressive income taxation is so awesome for everyone else and sucks when applied to you? (FWIW, I've looked at the report that purports to back the 'CA pays more than it receives' and it isn't super accurate)

But it isn't progressive, right? An individual in CA who makes 50k gets less in Federal funding to projects that would benefit them, than if that same individual moved to another state, and made the exact same amount. Not saying I agree with the conceit that a state should have the level of economic autonomy argued for the the original post, but your argument doesn't hold water.

Would they still be making 50k if they moved to a different state though?

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#157

Post by justinc8687 »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #129

> The Transportation Department is withholding $647 million in federal grants for a $1.9 billion project that would modernize and increase the capacity of Caltrain. About 65,000 people use the rail line every day to commute between San Francisco and San Jose OK. Just thinking out loud here. $1.9 billion. 65,000 people per day. That's about $30K per person. In other words, you can almost buy a Tesla Model 3 for each p…

So the $1.9B includes the prices for the rails and infrastructure. Your electric bus calculation doesn't include any cost for road construction, expanding existing roads or building new ones. When you add that in, I'm willing to bet that the cost is similar or exceeds the gap you are describing.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#158

Post by 8note »

jimmywanger wrote: post #148
eon1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Much of that money is used for funding..illegal aliens Er, maybe, but far, far more is used on maintaining massive military superiority[0][1][2][3].. if it's tax dollars you're worried about, you ought to have far bigger concerns than "illegals". [0] https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... [1] https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spe... [2] http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archiv…

Typical example of "Whataboutism" [0] The point here is not government spending priorities, but spending efficiently and justly in the fund distribution we have now. In other words, we do spend money on illegal aliens, we spend more money on other things, but we should not be spending any money on illegal immigrants, no matter what else we're spending money on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

That's why we always use bit shifts for division. it doesn't matter if we're using an exponential algorithm instead of a linear one: the thing we should care most about is how fast that division is.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#159

Post by 8note »

davidf18 wrote: post #38
gumby wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, you really are upset with the idea of people living in California "illegally". Have you ever speeded and gotten away with it? Does that mean you also live in California "illegally" as that would make you also a scofflaw?

I am upset about the whining. Suck it up California. You elected politicians who use your tax funds on people who are in the country illegally and then you whine because you aren't getting federal funds. Since money is fungible it simply means that you want federal funds to pay for people who live in the country illegally. If you really want funding for the rail which I agree should exist, simply elect politicians th…

If you want to be fiscally responsible, that train clearly should not exist since it will be used by illegal aliens.

Instead, they should spend the money on giving their law enforcement tanks to keep at each existing station and then if an illegal alien gets on board, they can quickly destroy the tracks and/or train. That way, no money will be spent on aliens, period. Plus, the police get the armaments they need to defend against this immigrant threat.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#160

Post by Kluny »

jimmywanger wrote: post #152
Kluny wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages. Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting…

> We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. That fact is immaterial. The fact is that they're breaking the law, despite any other effects. Would you be ok with somebody living in your back yard if they watered and weeded the garden? After all, they're contributing more to the property than they are taking out of it.

Well is material, since OP specifically said this:

> please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally

Which I addressed. I also stated that the fact they're here illegally is another matter. This was the line in which I did that, in case you have trouble reading:

> Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem.

Post reply on HN