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

Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#91

Post by njoro »

melling wrote: post #71

How does China build 14,000 miles of high-speed rail, with another 10,000 on the way, while the United States essentially has zero miles? Countries are the same size. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#/me... Their cheaper and more efficient infrastructure is could to pay dividends over the next few decades.

Because of the US international dominance it hasn't really had to develop domestically to compete with other countries. Instead Americans compete among themselves, making commonly beneficial things controversial.

At some point Americans will hopefully realize that spending significantly more money on essential things like education, housing and transport won't be competitive in the long run.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#92

Post by jessaustin »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #84
basementcat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Golden Gate Bridge was finished ahead of schedule and under budget.

Maybe, but the Bay Bridge wasn't, and they were built around the same time. http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/entry/dont-forget-...

That link discusses the renovation of the eastern section that took place since 2000? Hardly comparable to the original construction of either bridge...

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#93

Post by ebikelaw »

jessaustin wrote: post #88
ebikelaw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of disconnected from reality, you seem to be claiming that poor people travel, which they don't. In yet another example of American inequality, the bottom income quartile of families are quite stationary; they can neither afford to move about nor do they have "days off" as such because an American is not legally entitled to any. The supermajority of American families cannot even afford an unexpected $500 exp…

'rayiner seems to have argued you in a circle here. He is the one claiming the poor aren't going to ride this train; you hardly contradict him when you argue they aren't going to use cheaper transportation either.

Not at all. He hasn't addressed my point which is that for individuals travelling alone the train will be dramatically cheaper than driving over long distances.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#94

Post by [deleted] »

ebikelaw wrote: post #93
jessaustin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'rayiner seems to have argued you in a circle here. He is the one claiming the poor aren't going to ride this train; you hardly contradict him when you argue they aren't going to use cheaper transportation either.

Not at all. He hasn't addressed my point which is that for individuals travelling alone the train will be dramatically cheaper than driving over long distances.

[deleted]

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#95

Post by slg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #89
slg wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That $0.55 / mile is dropping with EVs (which also help address some of the other problems you mentioned) and would crater if driverless cars become a reality in the next decade or so. A driverless EV should easily be able to beat $86 for a 400 mile trip from SF to LA. Which makes we wonder if the time for high speed rail has come and gone.

> That $0.55 / mile is dropping with EVs (which also help address some of the other problems you mentioned) and would crater if driverless cars become a reality in the next decade or so. Driverless cars increase congestion, which increases cost of human travel, once the taxes needed to pay for road construction and maintenance are factored in.

Which is an investment that we will inevitably have to make at some point. I think it makes more sense to start preparing for that future than spend money on what is appearing to be a stopgap solution like high speed rail.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#96

Post by slg »

ebikelaw wrote: post #78
slg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And another difference is that the development of a rail line requires billions in additional public funds (and also takes years if not decades to build) while the development of driverless cars is being paid for by private businesses. Wasn't your initial argument about saving money?

That characterization seems hilariously disconnected from the facts, which are that DARPA kick-started autonomous vehicles more than fifteen years ago with millions in government money, and that the vast majority of development of such vehicles has occurred on public roads, mostly in California. The parts that have been developed off-road have been done at an old Air Force base, and if you want to argue that facility…

You are right that I should have included a qualifier in that statement that it is not 100% funded by private business but that percentage is probably pretty close. Yes, DARPA got things moving but like you said their investment was in the millions. Google, Uber, Tesla, GM, etc have invested billions into the tech. Once again if this is a question of the effectiveness of the money spent, DARPA's investment in driverless tech greatly exceeds the potential of billions being spent on high speed rail.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#97

Post by AFNobody »

Gargoyle wrote: post #38
AFNobody wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, there is no freeway that passes through those impassable mountains. /s

Have you been on that freeway? It's not really a bullet train-friendly route.

Have you bothered to look around when you drove through it?

The amount of tunneling/demolition involved is quite viable. lol.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#98

Post by Hydraulix989 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #21
jessaustin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is LA Times against it because LA residents are, or are LA residents against it because LA Times is?

People think of California as one of the bluest blue states, but it's very far from homogeneous. The LA metro area, for example, contains several affluent and strongly Republican communities, which means that if you poll educated/affluent/traditional-news-reading people in that area you're going to get results that lean more conservative than what people often expect (and Republicans/conservatives in the US are gener…

Politics aside, is there any more practical reason Bay Area would prefer to have this train more than LA (e.g. people in Bay Area visit LA more often than people in LA visit Bay Area)?

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#99

Post by ubernostrum »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #98
ubernostrum wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People think of California as one of the bluest blue states, but it's very far from homogeneous. The LA metro area, for example, contains several affluent and strongly Republican communities, which means that if you poll educated/affluent/traditional-news-reading people in that area you're going to get results that lean more conservative than what people often expect (and Republicans/conservatives in the US are gener…

Politics aside, is there any more practical reason Bay Area would prefer to have this train more than LA (e.g. people in Bay Area visit LA more often than people in LA visit Bay Area)?

SFO and LAX send a lot of traffic to each other (each one is the other's top domestic destination), and there doesn't seem to be a directional preference:

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1&Airport=LAX&...

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1&Airport=SFO&...

There may be a practical argument that the HSR would make it easier to commute to SF from further away, which might relieve housing pressure a bit.

But I really do think it mostly comes down to politics, and to there being more people in the SF area whose politics lean toward public transit/public works than in the LA area.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#100

Post by tptacek »

ebikelaw wrote: post #93
jessaustin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'rayiner seems to have argued you in a circle here. He is the one claiming the poor aren't going to ride this train; you hardly contradict him when you argue they aren't going to use cheaper transportation either.

Not at all. He hasn't addressed my point which is that for individuals travelling alone the train will be dramatically cheaper than driving over long distances.

You haven't come close to establishing that either. Bus fare from SF to LA is less than half that train ticket price.
Post reply on HN