Killing it would be short-sighted. If it gets killed, there would probably never be the opportunity to build it ever again. California is flush with tech money, put some of it to good use.
Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
11–20 of 119 posts
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who said this would be a massive boondoggle and voted against the bond in the first place were right all along.
The people who said it would be a massive boondoggle then went out of their way to make it a massive boondoggle. I guess the mistake California made was not realizing they weren't making a prediction, but a threat.
Yes, it was quite nefarious of them to alter the laws of physics and geology to make tunneling through the mountains outside LA into a nigh-impossible engineering task.
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#13The cost argument is always interesting to me, when you consider it in context. We (in America) recently passed a tax cut that will cost around $150B/year for the next 10 years, and likely more if the temporary parts are made permanent. Even with cost overruns, that's almost enough to pay for 2 California bullet trains PER YEAR for the next decade. And yes, I know California is just 1 state out of 50, but even still,…
I bet you could get the number over 50% by offering to pay $20 to every voter who voted no and would be willing to change their vote. That would cost less than $70M (based on registered voters, not actual turnout).
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#14This website is blocked in Europe.
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#15Killing it would be short-sighted. If it gets killed, there would probably never be the opportunity to build it ever again. California is flush with tech money, put some of it to good use.
I suspect that tech could do a better job at building it.
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#16The cost argument is always interesting to me, when you consider it in context. We (in America) recently passed a tax cut that will cost around $150B/year for the next 10 years, and likely more if the temporary parts are made permanent. Even with cost overruns, that's almost enough to pay for 2 California bullet trains PER YEAR for the next decade. And yes, I know California is just 1 state out of 50, but even still,…
I bet you could get the number over 50% by offering to pay $20 to every voter who voted no and would be willing to change their vote. That would cost less than $70M (based on registered voters, not actual turnout).
[deleted]
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who said this would be a massive boondoggle and voted against the bond in the first place were right all along.
Every big public project is a massive boondoggle. Should we just stop doing things?
We should at least prioritize the things we actually need. A fifth of what's been spent on the high speed rail line could go a long way to upgrade California's water infrastructure.
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#18Normally the majority will not support a public transportation project simply because the majority can not use it.
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who said it would be a massive boondoggle then went out of their way to make it a massive boondoggle. I guess the mistake California made was not realizing they weren't making a prediction, but a threat.
Yes, it was quite nefarious of them to alter the laws of physics and geology to make tunneling through the mountains outside LA into a nigh-impossible engineering task.
Correct, there is no freeway that passes through those impassable mountains. /s
Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train
#20Killing it would be short-sighted. If it gets killed, there would probably never be the opportunity to build it ever again. California is flush with tech money, put some of it to good use.
I suspect that tech could do a better job at building it.
I would argue that there's value in collaboration between innovators and an experienced group of civil engineering contractors operating under an accountable and transparent consortium arrangement.
Less Boston's "Big Dig" [1], more Hallandsås tunnel [2].