Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[thereisnospoon]

So how do we fix the mess that is southern califorina.

Oh'sshhiitttt, we don't as the rich fucker gets more money and the poor can wait 10 hours.

Let Sacramento fix California. Not one dime of federal taxpayer money should be used for a rail system that benefits perhaps one tenth of one percent of US population.
California made their own mess. Let them fix it.
As for the rest of your post....HUH?

 

[thereisnospoon]

We already have Amtrak, and look how mismanaged that is!

Here's a question that the proponents of a high speed rail system should dwell on: Do we really need high speed rail...or is it just a cool toy that everyone else has, so logic dictates we have to get one too?

What you describe is known as a "political me too!".

 

[thereisnospoon]

Seems like everything is being derailed in America....

60 billion dollar cut in infrastructure since 2009. A bunch of crooks are screwing over this country and handing it over to the middle east and fat cats.

You are posting nonsense. Not a single link to support your ridiculous claims.
You are posting with your emotions. Not your thoughts.
This......http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/dot_budget_highlights_fy_2013_smaller.pdf......Is called a LINK, douche bag..
On page 61 the numbers are there....
The Federal Highway Administration budget request for FY 2013 was $81 billion.
So, you're contention is this is representative of a 45% CUT in federal highway funding?
Ok.....Show me where.
Oh, here's the rules. No opinion pieces. No blogs.
If in 30 seconds I can find the federal source that presents the budget, so can anyone else.
Have at it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That sucks. Even Iraq has high speed rail. Pretty embarrassing for a superpower.

Nothing says superpower more than wasteful, boondogle spending on rail that no one will use.

America use to have the best infrastructure and educational system on earth. Yet fighting for that makes me a fail? Give me a fucking break.

[MENTION=29707]Toddsterpatriot[/MENTION]

We do have excellent infrastructure. It's based in aviation.
Aircraft move our mail, durable goods, etc.
Many airports are now building intermodal centers where airborne cargo can easily be transferred to either rail or truck.
The only thing you are fighting for is a multi billion dollar boondoggle which will never pan out as anything but a white elephant.
Due to the sheer cost to construct operate and maintain such a rail system, the fares on such a rail system would be out of reach of most Americans.
If you really wanted to be pro rail, you'd look toward modernizing the existing Amtrak system.
Right now Amtrak is antiquated. The trains are inconvenient and slow.
Only the Northeast corridor Acela service remotely resembles what a modern rail system in the US should be.
This dream to bring Japanese bullet train or the Chinese Mag Lev system here are pie in the sky.
These are great technologies but they are cost prohibitive.

 

[daveman]

Yeah really....Who needs improved mass transportation in California. Keep the cars on the roads. The oil companies need the money and the air needs the smog.

And CA needs to comply with the law.

Obamacare?

This thread is about California's high-speed rail boondoggle.

You do know Obamacare has nothing to do with that, right?

 

[daveman]

So how do we fix the mess that is southern califorina.

Oh'sshhiitttt, we don't as the rich fucker gets more money and the poor can wait 10 hours.

California's problems are of its own making. I feel no obligation to help them fix their own fuckups.

 

[daveman]

We already have Amtrak, and look how mismanaged that is!

Here's a question that the proponents of a high speed rail system should dwell on: Do we really need high speed rail...or is it just a cool toy that everyone else has, so logic dictates we have to get one too?

What progressives want has nothing to do with logic. It's all about emotion.

 

[daveman]

What happened with Americanwanting the best and biggest?

Oh'yesss,,,,the right has a ****** vision for our country!

What are you babbling about? You're as bad as Franco sometimes.

And you're fighting for our country becoming a second rate nation. Maybe you should fight for cutting waste and efficacy???

Oh can't have that as that means we spend on our country.

Conservatives are all for cutting waste and inefficiency in government. But when we talk about it, the left screeches that we want to throw Grandma off a cliff.

 

[daveman]

How would you fix the traffic mess in southern California? Stop being the party of no and offer solutions.

I don't live in Southern California; I have no need to nor interest in going there.

I don't have to offer a solution to a problem that doesn't affect me. But if you idiots find a solution, don't insist I help pay for it.

 

[daveman]

Right now Amtrak is antiquated. The trains are inconvenient and slow.

We brought my mother-in-law up from Louisiana a few weeks ago. We looked at Amtrack. She'd have had to go by bus from her town, Shreveport, to Texarkana where she'd board the train to Chicago. At Chicago, she'd have a layover then switch trains to come south to the nearest station to us -- a two-hour drive from our house. The entire trip would have taken 24 hours.

So we spent the same amount of money on plane tickets, and she was here in 10 hours, door-to-door. Much easier on a 74-year-old woman.

Amtrack is good if you want to look at scenery while you're traveling, and aren't in any hurry to get there. My brother like to ride Amtrack.

 

[WillReadmore]

Mas transit is a good idea. Only though if it can be funded at a reasonable cost to the users and to the taxpayers.
Don't forget the environmental aspects. For every mile of rail right of way, there will be an environmental study required. Then of course there will be the inevitable lawsuits by those opposed to anything remotely resembling progress.

The SF - LA airline route has the second highest usage in the nation at 2.8 million passengers per year. (The most traveled route in the nation is NY - LA at 3 million, making LA air traffic a significant issue.

By road it's a 380 mile trip, so airline travel makes single day trips possible, while by car even a two day trip would be arduous.

The cost of meeting the transportation demand between these cities is going to be huge no matter which method is used. Major new airports anywhere near the LA basin would face gigantic obstacles.

If light rail can meet the projected 2.5 hours travel time, it's hard to believe this mode of transportation wouldn't justify a significant ticket price. It would become time competitive with airline travel.

Obviously there has been real analysis for this project. But, if anyone out there hasn't actually looked at the scope of the problem, I would argue that it's worth a look. This project certainly doesn't strike me as crazy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How would you fix the traffic mess in southern California? Stop being the party of no and offer solutions.

To whom are you responding?

 

[thereisnospoon]

How about protesting for money for fusion? Might be the best of all worlds.

To power our autos?

The electric cars as of this moment are nothing less then coal and natural gas machines. Let's change that...

Well the guys in the white lab coats had better get their collective asses in gear.
Look, battery powered or electric cars are dead.
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future.

 

[daveman]

Mas transit is a good idea. Only though if it can be funded at a reasonable cost to the users and to the taxpayers.
Don't forget the environmental aspects. For every mile of rail right of way, there will be an environmental study required. Then of course there will be the inevitable lawsuits by those opposed to anything remotely resembling progress.

The SF - LA airline route has the second highest usage in the nation at 2.8 million passengers per year. (The most traveled route in the nation is NY - LA at 3 million, making LA air traffic a significant issue.

By road it's a 380 mile trip, so airline travel makes single day trips possible, while by car even a two day trip would be arduous.

The cost of meeting the transportation demand between these cities is going to be huge no matter which method is used. Major new airports anywhere near the LA basin would face gigantic obstacles.

If light rail can meet the projected 2.5 hours travel time, it's hard to believe this mode of transportation wouldn't justify a significant ticket price. It would become time competitive with airline travel.

Obviously there has been real analysis for this project. But, if anyone out there hasn't actually looked at the scope of the problem, I would argue that it's worth a look. This project certainly doesn't strike me as crazy.

If California wants it, let California pay for it. ALL of it.

Of course, they need to pay for their unfunded state and local pension liabilities first...all $329 billion worth.

But then, liberals never have been very good with money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This has always been the White Elephant project of all White Elephant projects. A hundred billion dollars, spent to benefit a very few people, at a time when California already has adequate road and air transportation, and is under staggering debts with its liberal politicians pouring on more and more.

Not sure what Obama has to do with all this, aside from the fact that massive Federal funds were coming in to help pay for it, even though most of the country would never had ridden on the train.

Then, to everyone's surprise, a judge actually announced that California had to obey the law.

That brought everything to a screeching halt.

Hopefully the second sentence of the article is correct.

-------------------------------------

Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan Loses Big in California Court

Conn Carroll | Nov 26, 2013

California Gov. Jerry Brown can not spend state bond revenues on President Obama's signature transportation project until the state can identify how they will pay for the entire $68 billion project, a California court ruled Monday. The decision almost certainly spells death for the project.

This August, Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) “abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law."

That law would be Proposition 1A (the “Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century”), which required the CHSRA to identify “sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor” and complete “all necessary project level environmental clearances” before construction can begin.

At the time, Democrats sold Obama's high-speed rail plan as a $40 billion project. But that number quickly skyrocketed to more than $100 billion, after California voters approved it, of course.

Yeah really....Who needs improved mass transportation in California. Keep the cars on the roads. The oil companies need the money and the air needs the smog.

Why does using 19th century technology count as progress in your world?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone that thinks that the republican party doesn't hates science and infrastructure. Well, this is a hint of that.

I would go to Japan and buy one of their 300 mph trains

You could stay here and buy a 600 mph plane.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This has always been the White Elephant project of all White Elephant projects. A hundred billion dollars, spent to benefit a very few people, at a time when California already has adequate road and air transportation, and is under staggering debts with its liberal politicians pouring on more and more.

Not sure what Obama has to do with all this, aside from the fact that massive Federal funds were coming in to help pay for it, even though most of the country would never had ridden on the train.

Then, to everyone's surprise, a judge actually announced that California had to obey the law.

That brought everything to a screeching halt.

Hopefully the second sentence of the article is correct.

-------------------------------------

Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan Loses Big in California Court

Conn Carroll | Nov 26, 2013

California Gov. Jerry Brown can not spend state bond revenues on President Obama's signature transportation project until the state can identify how they will pay for the entire $68 billion project, a California court ruled Monday. The decision almost certainly spells death for the project.

This August, Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) “abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law."

That law would be Proposition 1A (the “Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century&#8221, which required the CHSRA to identify “sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor” and complete “all necessary project level environmental clearances” before construction can begin.

At the time, Democrats sold Obama's high-speed rail plan as a $40 billion project. But that number quickly skyrocketed to more than $100 billion, after California voters approved it, of course.

I see you've never had to commute from SFO to LAX or driven from the Bay Area to the LA Basin. Adequate it ain't. Simply getting a rental car at LAX can take as long as the flight. Then one gets on the LA Freeway System which is more than adequate between 3 and 4 in the morning. Otherwise, forgetaboutit.

I suspect the State will appeal the ruling, time will tell if it stands.

The law is pretty clear, the state has no grounds for an appeal, especially when factor in the minor and insignificant detail that they aren't even part of the lawsuit.

But, please, keep demonstrating your keen grasp of all the elements of the case.

 

[WillReadmore]

If California wants it, let California pay for it. ALL of it.

Of course, they need to pay for their unfunded state and local pension liabilities first...all $329 billion worth.

But then, liberals never have been very good with money.

Yes, I just bet you'd like to change the way the US works the minute in involves CA.

The average red-state GDP, the #1 ranking of CA's GDP and the extra federal revenue needed to keep red states afloat are all pretty good indications of who is propping up whom.

 

[daveman]

If California wants it, let California pay for it. ALL of it.

Of course, they need to pay for their unfunded state and local pension liabilities first...all $329 billion worth.

But then, liberals never have been very good with money.

Yes, I just bet you'd like to change the way the US works the minute in involves CA.

You'd lose. But I suspect that's your default mode.

The average red-state GDP, the #1 ranking of CA's GDP and the extra federal revenue needed to keep red states afloat are all pretty good indications of who is propping up whom.

Yeah? If CA's doing so great, why is it $329 billion in the hole just in pensions?

Who's going to prop it up when the bill comes due? That's right -- the rest of the US.

 

[jasonnfree]

Mas transit is a good idea. Only though if it can be funded at a reasonable cost to the users and to the taxpayers.
Don't forget the environmental aspects. For every mile of rail right of way, there will be an environmental study required. Then of course there will be the inevitable lawsuits by those opposed to anything remotely resembling progress.

The SF - LA airline route has the second highest usage in the nation at 2.8 million passengers per year. (The most traveled route in the nation is NY - LA at 3 million, making LA air traffic a significant issue.

By road it's a 380 mile trip, so airline travel makes single day trips possible, while by car even a two day trip would be arduous.

The cost of meeting the transportation demand between these cities is going to be huge no matter which method is used. Major new airports anywhere near the LA basin would face gigantic obstacles.

If light rail can meet the projected 2.5 hours travel time, it's hard to believe this mode of transportation wouldn't justify a significant ticket price. It would become time competitive with airline travel.

Obviously there has been real analysis for this project. But, if anyone out there hasn't actually looked at the scope of the problem, I would argue that it's worth a look. This project certainly doesn't strike me as crazy.

If California wants it, let California pay for it. ALL of it.

Of course, they need to pay for their unfunded state and local pension liabilities first...all $329 billion worth.

But then, liberals never have been very good with money.

So liberals have never been good with money, which is why both major crashes in the last 80 years happened while having republicans in power and in the white house for many years. Keep telling the lie though, somebody may buy this crap just like you did.