Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[WillReadmore]

How does a project that benefits only one state benefit the entire nation?

The national GDP is a combination of that of the individual states.

Federal spending on transportation projects is frequently inside single states.

It's not even clear this will benefit CA. What good is a high-speed train that has to stop at every little town before it can get up to speed?

Regardless, they can't build it. CA has to follow the law. Progressives' good intentions don't trump the law.

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.

I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

 

[daveman]

The national GDP is a combination of that of the individual states.

Federal spending on transportation projects is frequently inside single states.

It's not even clear this will benefit CA. What good is a high-speed train that has to stop at every little town before it can get up to speed?

Regardless, they can't build it. CA has to follow the law. Progressives' good intentions don't trump the law.

It won't stop at every little town, that's the point.
Perhaps they would have some trains that do and some that are express trains.

"Perhaps"?

Not good enough.

 

[daveman]

The national GDP is a combination of that of the individual states.

Federal spending on transportation projects is frequently inside single states.

It's not even clear this will benefit CA. What good is a high-speed train that has to stop at every little town before it can get up to speed?

Regardless, they can't build it. CA has to follow the law. Progressives' good intentions don't trump the law.

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.

I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Ride a bike and shut the fuck up.

Yes thats genius. .I dare you to go ride a bike with those hills. I drive up next to you and laugh when you get off and start walking up....

Fucking Internet tough guys

 

[Ernie S.]

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

At the rate they're cutting r@d our military will soon be left behind most of the first world. Japan, Russia, China, Germany all have airplanes that can compete with ours.

Our infrastructure is falling behind too. Super power? For how long.

As long as Libs insist on throwing money at stupid shit like AGW and paying people to pop out babies with no daddies.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's not even clear this will benefit CA. What good is a high-speed train that has to stop at every little town before it can get up to speed?

Regardless, they can't build it. CA has to follow the law. Progressives' good intentions don't trump the law.

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.

I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

 

[daveman]

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.

I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

 

[WillReadmore]

Then by all means, answer the question. If you need more time, we can wait.

I thought your question had already been answered a few times now.

Maybe I don't understand your question. If there is a part that is unanswered, please ask again.

For this specific project, what is the identifiable benefit to any of the other states or the nation as a whole?

You have not answered.

Transportation is key infrastructure needed by businesses, and thus benefiting GDP. US GDP is an aggregate of the states, of course. Growing our total product is a matter of growing the product of each state. All states benefit from a higher US GDP through interstate trade, federal tax dollars, global competitiveness of the US in general, strength of the dollar, etc., etc. The US gets involved when projects are of a size that is challenging for a single state and where there is benefit from the project being completed.

Businesses demonstrate the need for fast travel between these two cities by the fact that it is the second most used route in the US (LA / NYC being #1). Fast alternatives are rapidly becoming unavailable as they are limited to air travel and the air system in that area is growing toward capacity limits. The possible number of take offs and landings at an airport are not infinite.

Other alternatives to fast rail (such as new airports and runways) are also extremely expensive and have other issues. New freeways are also incredibly expensive and NOT fast. Of course, roadways have other advantages, disadvantages and capacity factors as well.

You can go read the studies on economic impact, etc., if you really want the blow by blow. I'm not going to get into the issue of calculating the exact pay-out date or even how that might be calculated.

 

[WillReadmore]

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.

I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Ha!

But, Kentucky benefits from projects in their state made possible by extra tax from CA plus all that extra blue grass (or whatever) CA buys from them as a result of the extra business activity and the money that throws off plus the international impact of a stronger US economy.

Every state has projects that receive some amount of federal funding - hopefully not as quid pro quo but as good investments in America.

Investing in America isn't all that bad an idea.

 

[Political Junky]

It's not even clear this will benefit CA. What good is a high-speed train that has to stop at every little town before it can get up to speed?

Regardless, they can't build it. CA has to follow the law. Progressives' good intentions don't trump the law.

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.


I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

"In fact New Jersey is a donor state, we get 61 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington. And interestingly Kentucky gets $1.51 on every dollar they send to Washington."
Chris Christie on Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 in an article on NJ.com

http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...christie-claims-kentucky-gets-more-twice-bac/

 

[WillReadmore]

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

 

[daveman]

Indeed, our laws are stretched by projects that are this big.

As to whether it will benefit CA, of course that has to do with the confidence people have in the studies and design that has been done.

I'll just note that there is high demand today for fast transport between SF and LA even at the price of an airplane ticket. And, the design for this system claims to meet travel times that are in that range.

Other transportation alternatives will be stupendously expensive, too, by the way. New airports (and even just new runways) take a lot of space (that neither SF nor LA have) and aren't considered great new neighbors. Plus, the air traffic into LA is intense, with it being a terminus of the two highest volume routs in America.

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

"In fact New Jersey is a donor state, we get 61 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington. And interestingly Kentucky gets $1.51 on every dollar they send to Washington."
Chris Christie on Tuesday, July 30th, 2013 in an article on NJ.com

In case you didn't notice, that didn't answer my question.

Does Christie have the figures on what KY gets back from the money we send to DC that gets diverted to CA? No? Then don't bother quoting him.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd bet you'd be opposed to the freeway today if it was being built now.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

If that were the case, wouldn't it be more likely that Blue states would be the beneficiaries?

Yet, the fact is that blue states are net donor states while red states get more than the contribute.

 

[daveman]

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

Amtrak: 40 Years, $40 Billion | National Review Online

When Congress created it in 1970, Amtrak was intended to be a profitable enterprise; instead, it has cost taxpayers a total of $40 billion. According to a 2009 study by the Pew Charitable Trust, 41 of Amtrak’s 44 lines lost money in 2008. Per-passenger losses ranged from $5 per passenger on the Northeast Regional to $462 on the Sunset Limited line, which runs all the way from New Orleans to Los Angeles. According to the Amtrak inspector general’s September 2010 semiannual report, the rail service covered only about 84 percent of its operating costs in fiscal year 2010.​

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

 

[daveman]

I'd bet you'd be opposed to the freeway today if it was being built now.

Yes. And I'd oppose fire if it were discovered today, and teaching kids writing if it were invented today.

I bet you're a moron. I win.

 

[daveman]

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

If that were the case, wouldn't it be more likely that Blue states would be the beneficiaries?

Yet, the fact is that blue states are net donor states while red states get more than the contribute.

And the fact is Obama has wasted billions on cronies and donors.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

And as a means of transferring wealth from taxpayers to Democratic campaign funds. See Solyndra.

 

[Ernie S.]

I thought your question had already been answered a few times now.

Maybe I don't understand your question. If there is a part that is unanswered, please ask again.

For this specific project, what is the identifiable benefit to any of the other states or the nation as a whole?

You have not answered.

Transportation is key infrastructure needed by businesses, and thus benefiting GDP. US GDP is an aggregate of the states, of course. Growing our total product is a matter of growing the product of each state. All states benefit from a higher US GDP through interstate trade, federal tax dollars, global competitiveness of the US in general, strength of the dollar, etc., etc. The US gets involved when projects are of a size that is challenging for a single state and where there is benefit from the project being completed.

Businesses demonstrate the need for fast travel between these two cities by the fact that it is the second most used route in the US (LA / NYC being #1). Fast alternatives are rapidly becoming unavailable as they are limited to air travel and the air system in that area is growing toward capacity limits. The possible number of take offs and landings at an airport are not infinite.

Other alternatives to fast rail (such as new airports and runways) are also extremely expensive and have other issues. New freeways are also incredibly expensive and NOT fast. Of course, roadways have other advantages, disadvantages and capacity factors as well.

You can go read the studies on economic impact, etc., if you really want the blow by blow. I'm not going to get into the issue of calculating the exact pay-out date or even how that might be calculated.

Rail freight, perhaps, but high speed rail? Not so much. The payback on a 100 billion project is way out past obsolescence.

 

[daveman]

For this specific project, what is the identifiable benefit to any of the other states or the nation as a whole?

You have not answered.

Transportation is key infrastructure needed by businesses, and thus benefiting GDP. US GDP is an aggregate of the states, of course. Growing our total product is a matter of growing the product of each state. All states benefit from a higher US GDP through interstate trade, federal tax dollars, global competitiveness of the US in general, strength of the dollar, etc., etc. The US gets involved when projects are of a size that is challenging for a single state and where there is benefit from the project being completed.

Businesses demonstrate the need for fast travel between these two cities by the fact that it is the second most used route in the US (LA / NYC being #1). Fast alternatives are rapidly becoming unavailable as they are limited to air travel and the air system in that area is growing toward capacity limits. The possible number of take offs and landings at an airport are not infinite.

Other alternatives to fast rail (such as new airports and runways) are also extremely expensive and have other issues. New freeways are also incredibly expensive and NOT fast. Of course, roadways have other advantages, disadvantages and capacity factors as well.

You can go read the studies on economic impact, etc., if you really want the blow by blow. I'm not going to get into the issue of calculating the exact pay-out date or even how that might be calculated.

Rail freight, perhaps, but high speed rail? Not so much. The payback on a 100 billion project is way out past obsolescence.

Amtrak was built with technology current at the time. Nothing new, nothing cutting edge -- and it's STILL consistently lost money.