Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the heck is the train line doing near Fresno? Why is it not following I-5 and making zero stops in between the South Bay and LA?
Politics. Other responses on this thread are bending over backwards to explain it rationally, but honestly, the route was chosen to help keep state legislators from the rural parts of California from scuttling the deal.
Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
161–170 of 201 posts
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#162While this article finds an issue with the way the Tejon Pass route was eliminated in favor of the Tehachapi Pass route, Tejon Pass route would skip a station in Lancaster/Palmdale, which would be a mistake. As the article acknowledges, these are rapidly growing exurbs that are refuge from the exorbitant land prices in the LA Basin. There is existing commuter rail service between there and Downtown LA, but a HSR is a…
I'd love to know the rationale in choosing Pacheco over Altamont.
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of them have done anything on this scale, have they? They’re valuable because they don’t make investments like this. Their work is on a long lever so they have great margins over massive volume.
I’m pretty sure Uber has terrible margins :)
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's take your own reasoning and let's apply it and see where the numbers fall. The Bart cost was $1.586 billion (according to Wikipedia) or around ~$10 billion of today's dollars. Let say that back then we had put that money ($1.586 billion) into an annuity in perpetuity and given the money each years to the riders so they will find alternative means of transport. So if instead of building bart back in the 70's we…
Your math is wrong. You can (at least historically) get a 4% annuity that rises with inflation in perpetuity.
I'm genuinely curious. My father is retired and has some savings and that would seem like the ideal investment for him.
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics. Other responses on this thread are bending over backwards to explain it rationally, but honestly, the route was chosen to help keep state legislators from the rural parts of California from scuttling the deal.
If Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. weren't included as stops, then those rural legislators would be entirely rational in scuttling said deal, given that it'd be a massive expenditure with exactly zero benefit to their constituents.
Frankly, I wish we'd stop using my tax dollars for road subsidies in Flyover, Oklabraska and military assault vehicles for local police, but we live in a society, and we don't always get what we individually want. I'm not naïve and realize that politics have always been selfish, but the subsidy arrow in America points solidly toward the middle, and has done so for decades. They're already getting more than their fair share in Bakersfield, so maybe they can shut up for a little while and take a hit for the common good.
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if it wants to challenge China in manufacturing they need to rebuild the entire railroad system. Can you explain this point? The USA has a great cargo rail system that is efficient and integrated with other transportation systems.
American railroads are slow, old, neglected, unsafe and need to be shared with passenger trains. Forty years of planned and extensive investment in infrastructure is how China lifted itself out of its misery. There was a time when the US did the same but something happened along the way.
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or any improvements on the 405 for us poor souls who live in the Valley+ and work in Santa Monica :(
We just spent a lot on that. [1] Are you not seeing results? What additonal work would you like to see? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/los-angeles-drivers-on...
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. weren't included as stops, then those rural legislators would be entirely rational in scuttling said deal, given that it'd be a massive expenditure with exactly zero benefit to their constituents.
That's clearly nonsense -- it has some benefit, in the sense that it grows the economy which pays the taxes which funds things like dams and bridges and fire departments -- but let's put a pin in that. Frankly, I wish we'd stop using my tax dollars for road subsidies in Flyover, Oklabraska and military assault vehicles for local police, but we live in a society, and we don't always get what we individually want. I'm…
The inland cities won't get to see that benefit, since the train that's supposed to be providing that economic growth would only be doing so for two coastal areas.
Unless you're claiming here that the prosperity of San Francisco and Los Angeles means that Fresno and Bakersfield magically become richer, in which case that'd just be trickle-down economics (but maybe that'd be fitting for the state where Reagan was Governor).
"Frankly, I wish we'd stop using my tax dollars for road subsidies in Flyover, Oklabraska"
Okay, you're free to vote that way. I don't wish that, and I'll tend to vote accordingly. Or, more precisely: I'll be inclined to vote for politicians who in turn vote/act/etc. accordingly.
(I do agree with you about the proliferation of military assault vehicles in civilian police departments, for what it's worth; that's a waste of money that'd be better spent elsewhere, like on transportation infrastructure).
In the case of this train, the point of the State of California funding it is for the State of California as a whole to benefit. If San Francisco and Los Angeles want to build a train that only connects those two cities and leave the rest of the state high and dry, then they can spend their own money on it. If you expect us inland Californians to pitch in, then the least y'all can do is give us some stops in the bigger of our cities.
"They're already getting more than their fair share in Bakersfield"
It's called redistribution of wealth. Just like how some individuals are disadvantaged relative to others, some cities are disadvantaged relative to others. Just like how we help subsidize the welfare of less-fortunate Americans by asking for a greater contribution from more-fortunate Americans, we help subsidize the welfare of less-fortunate cities by asking for a greater contribution from more-fortunate cities.
The subsidy arrow in America points solidly toward the middle because that's where it's needed most right now. Trying to move the arrow back toward the coasts will only amplify that need.
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's clearly nonsense -- it has some benefit, in the sense that it grows the economy which pays the taxes which funds things like dams and bridges and fire departments -- but let's put a pin in that. Frankly, I wish we'd stop using my tax dollars for road subsidies in Flyover, Oklabraska and military assault vehicles for local police, but we live in a society, and we don't always get what we individually want. I'm…
"it has some benefit, in the sense that it grows the economy which pays the taxes which funds things like dams and bridges and fire departments" The inland cities won't get to see that benefit, since the train that's supposed to be providing that economic growth would only be doing so for two coastal areas. Unless you're claiming here that the prosperity of San Francisco and Los Angeles means that Fresno and Bakersfi…
No, that's revisionism. We've been fire-hosing money at rural areas for decades, if not longer. This isn't a recent thing, and it's mostly because our system of government has one branch that over-represents the voices of rural citizens.
"San Francisco and Los Angeles want to build a train that only connects those two cities and leave the rest of the state high and dry, then they can spend their own money on it."
If you expect people to pave roads and provide drinking water and put out forest fires out in Bakersfield, maybe you can spend your own money on it. We'll gladly take our money away from that, and spend it on things we need...like mass transit. Keep up with this absolutist, ultimatum line of thinking, and you're going to lose.
Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I want speedy government takeover of land.
But I want faster trials. If it fails, it should fail fast. If it succeeds, it should succeed fast.