Californian's Rejoice! Your taxes are going UP UP UP! (2 Viewers)

[StrikeS2k]

i also purposefully chose my address due to its proximity with light rail. the light rail system is good but they really need to get it expanded west and northwest and all the way to DIA. it's perfect for people who work in the tech center or downtown as long as they live on the i-25 corridor or littleton. it's also perfect for people who like to go downtown and live down south. but they've got to get it expanded.

Agreed. I was going to live in this general area anyways. When I looked at houses it got narrowed down to about 5 or 6 that I liked about equally. The light rail broke the tie easily. But at least they're working on the system here. I would gladly live with the tax increase they're proposing to keep the fast trax system on schedule and without any changes. There's no way I'd vote for something like that in LA/CA, not because I don't want it done but because they keep lieing to the constituents and spending the money elsewhere. From what I've seen they've been pretty straightforward in CO. Heck, I got a partial refund each of the last two years on my homeowners taxes due to TABOR. You'd never see that in CA.

 

[videoguy505]

Finally someone gets it. I've been on a crusade the last 5-10 years with all my friends and family to vote NO on propositions. I'd love to eliminate proposition balloting -- complete BS.

The only money proposition that should have been approved was 12, which was the veteran's home loans, since that's funded by the vets and not the taxpayers. All the others should have been voted down.Anyone vote in favor of Measure R in L.A.? Bad news...

Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature want to undo, in part, that positive step taken by the voters. A "deal" regarding the state budget includes the suspension of the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, which is where part of the sales taxes collected on gasoline sales are allocated. Unfortunately, this is also the only state funding that is legally allowed to be used for the operation of bus and rail transit.

This budget deal, which apparently has been agreed to in principle by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Darryl Steinberg, will cut $536 million between now and June 2010 from the collective pockets of California's transit agencies. In Los Angeles County, Metro calculates its portion of the lost STA funds at over $136 million between now and June 2009 and $227 million in the 2009-10 fiscal year, or about 15% of the budget to operate Metro's bus and rail lines. Guess what will be tapped to backfill that loss? That's right - the Measure R funds that the voters approved to increase service but will now be used just to maintain the status quo."

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/02/meas...le_news_too.php

 

[Koya]

I can say this... there is talk about high speed rail for upstate NY. THIS is a perfect place for such an endeavor. Albany, Syracuse, Rochester especially, could be an hour to two hours from NYC. That includes Syracuse and rochester in the economy of the rest of the world as has not been the case before. For example, I have a meeting in March up in 'cuse - do I fly in? such a pain. Drive? its 5 hours. Train? Still 5 hours. If it were 2 hours, that is an easy day trip, even less than a day's trip to go there, have a meeting, come back and still make it to the office for a couple hours if need be. Such a connection would have a multiplier economic effect for cities and regions that have lost their manufacturing base, yet are located too far from major tier cities to have much of an economic drawo outside of their regional significance.LA to LV on the otherhand, Im not so convinced about... SF to LA would be nice, and there is an obvious connection there, but that would be money better spent on making LA less auto dependent and reducing traffic and sprawl in the bay area, rather than just connecting the two cities more effeciently. Make the cities themselves, more effecient first.

I don't think you understand the geography of Upstate NY very well. Having a 2-hour train trip from Rochester to New York even under the most advanced rail system is highly unrealistic. And even if it were remotely possible, to achieve that time you would need individual rail lines built in straight lines from New York to each individual city in Upstate New York (instead of running through each city). Of course, in doing so you would have to traverse the very hilly Southern Tier which would make for astronomical costs on top of what is already a pie in the sky idea.Oh, and you also discount the fact that there is only a minimal economic or demographic connection between Upstate New York and New York City and thereby simply is so little demand or need for such a rail line.But, ya, it's still a fantastic idea.

I used the 2 hour trip for NYC to Syracuse - we are talking high speed rail here. If you get there in 5 now, why shouldnt a true high speed rail not be able to at least cut that in half? I understand the geography can be tough - is the Geography in Japan for their high speed rail one long plain?Second, my WHOLE point is that there is almost no economic or demographic connection between the two regions today - namely because its 5 freakin' hours to the middle of no where as compared to NYC. The whole point of a high speed rail would be to INCLUDE the southern tier upstate economy into the rest of the known universe... done so by a 2 hour or so connection from 'cuse to NYC, and a quick connection from Albany to 'cuse as well.

 

[OC Zed]

I can say this... there is talk about high speed rail for upstate NY. THIS is a perfect place for such an endeavor. Albany, Syracuse, Rochester especially, could be an hour to two hours from NYC. That includes Syracuse and rochester in the economy of the rest of the world as has not been the case before. For example, I have a meeting in March up in 'cuse - do I fly in? such a pain. Drive? its 5 hours. Train? Still 5 hours. If it were 2 hours, that is an easy day trip, even less than a day's trip to go there, have a meeting, come back and still make it to the office for a couple hours if need be. Such a connection would have a multiplier economic effect for cities and regions that have lost their manufacturing base, yet are located too far from major tier cities to have much of an economic drawo outside of their regional significance.LA to LV on the otherhand, Im not so convinced about... SF to LA would be nice, and there is an obvious connection there, but that would be money better spent on making LA less auto dependent and reducing traffic and sprawl in the bay area, rather than just connecting the two cities more effeciently. Make the cities themselves, more effecient first.

I don't think you understand the geography of Upstate NY very well. Having a 2-hour train trip from Rochester to New York even under the most advanced rail system is highly unrealistic. And even if it were remotely possible, to achieve that time you would need individual rail lines built in straight lines from New York to each individual city in Upstate New York (instead of running through each city). Of course, in doing so you would have to traverse the very hilly Southern Tier which would make for astronomical costs on top of what is already a pie in the sky idea.Oh, and you also discount the fact that there is only a minimal economic or demographic connection between Upstate New York and New York City and thereby simply is so little demand or need for such a rail line.But, ya, it's still a fantastic idea.

I used the 2 hour trip for NYC to Syracuse - we are talking high speed rail here. If you get there in 5 now, why shouldnt a true high speed rail not be able to at least cut that in half? I understand the geography can be tough - is the Geography in Japan for their high speed rail one long plain?Second, my WHOLE point is that there is almost no economic or demographic connection between the two regions today - namely because its 5 freakin' hours to the middle of no where as compared to NYC. The whole point of a high speed rail would be to INCLUDE the southern tier upstate economy into the rest of the known universe... done so by a 2 hour or so connection from 'cuse to NYC, and a quick connection from Albany to 'cuse as well.

First, with respect to NY to Syracuse... just look at a map. Again, to make that trip in even close to 2 hours, even with a high speed train, you are going to need to do it in more or less a straight line which is impractical considering that there is nothing between New York and Syracuse in that straight line. You would essentially be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to connect New York to a city of 100,000 people. Great idea! Add on an additional 45 minutes to Rochester and another 45 minutes to Buffalo. And when you talk about Japan, yes, a good portion of their high speed rail does run along their flatter plains. Oh, and most of the Japanese think their government's massive spending on infrastructure was a gigantic waste of money.Second, what do you expect would happen if people could suddenly travel from Western NY on a train to New York in 2 hours? That's not close enough to commute. That's not close enough for any significant economic ties (certainly none that would not have already been fostered by existing plane travel). By your logic, the Fast Ferry that they spent millions of dollars on to run between Rochester and Toronto would have been a big success.... It wasn't. It went bankrupt in less than a year.The reason that the Upstate NY cities are dying is not because they lack rail access to New York. I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why Californians have been fleeing to other states in the last several years.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Uh oh. Not looking good:

SACRAMENTO, CA - A deal brokered between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and State Sen. Abel Maldonado Wednesday may clear the way for passage of California's much-delayed budget proposal, possibly as early Thursday morning.

Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, told reporters at the State Capitol Wednesday evening that he would agree to offer the third and final GOP vote necessary to pass the budget if Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders would agree to include three constitutional amendments in the proposal.

Under the terms of the compromise hammered out between Schwarzenegger and Maldonado during a lunch meeting at Spataro Wednesday, Maldonado would receive support for constitutional amendments that would allow an open primary election, cut legislators' pay if they miss a budget deadline and prohibit pay raises for lawmakers when there are deficits.

"We're very, very close and we're going to have a budget with reforms for the people of California," Maldonado told reporters Wednesday evening. "It's going to be a budget that Republicans and Democrats are not going to like, but it's a budget that keeps California from going off a cliff."

Maldonado said if all sides agree, a new budget vote could happen as early Thursday morning. The senate reconvened to continue budget discussions at 11 p.m. Wednesday.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.asp...mp;provider=top

 

[StrikeS2k]

Budget passes. They did remove the 12 cent increase in gasoline tax though:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/...-senate-pa.html

 

[The Z Machine]

Budget passes. They did remove the 12 cent increase in gasoline tax though:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/...-senate-pa.html

I know it's a regressive tax, but WHY did they remove this? This is just going to give people MORE reason to drive their gas guzzling cars.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Budget passes. They did remove the 12 cent increase in gasoline tax though:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/...-senate-pa.html

I know it's a regressive tax, but WHY did they remove this? This is just going to give people MORE reason to drive their gas guzzling cars.

They removed it because the Republican they were bribing to vote for this ******* bill, Abel Maldonado, told them to.

 

[Redwes25]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

 

[Koya]

I can say this... there is talk about high speed rail for upstate NY. THIS is a perfect place for such an endeavor. Albany, Syracuse, Rochester especially, could be an hour to two hours from NYC. That includes Syracuse and rochester in the economy of the rest of the world as has not been the case before. For example, I have a meeting in March up in 'cuse - do I fly in? such a pain. Drive? its 5 hours. Train? Still 5 hours. If it were 2 hours, that is an easy day trip, even less than a day's trip to go there, have a meeting, come back and still make it to the office for a couple hours if need be. Such a connection would have a multiplier economic effect for cities and regions that have lost their manufacturing base, yet are located too far from major tier cities to have much of an economic drawo outside of their regional significance.LA to LV on the otherhand, Im not so convinced about... SF to LA would be nice, and there is an obvious connection there, but that would be money better spent on making LA less auto dependent and reducing traffic and sprawl in the bay area, rather than just connecting the two cities more effeciently. Make the cities themselves, more effecient first.

I don't think you understand the geography of Upstate NY very well. Having a 2-hour train trip from Rochester to New York even under the most advanced rail system is highly unrealistic. And even if it were remotely possible, to achieve that time you would need individual rail lines built in straight lines from New York to each individual city in Upstate New York (instead of running through each city). Of course, in doing so you would have to traverse the very hilly Southern Tier which would make for astronomical costs on top of what is already a pie in the sky idea.Oh, and you also discount the fact that there is only a minimal economic or demographic connection between Upstate New York and New York City and thereby simply is so little demand or need for such a rail line.But, ya, it's still a fantastic idea.

I used the 2 hour trip for NYC to Syracuse - we are talking high speed rail here. If you get there in 5 now, why shouldnt a true high speed rail not be able to at least cut that in half? I understand the geography can be tough - is the Geography in Japan for their high speed rail one long plain?Second, my WHOLE point is that there is almost no economic or demographic connection between the two regions today - namely because its 5 freakin' hours to the middle of no where as compared to NYC. The whole point of a high speed rail would be to INCLUDE the southern tier upstate economy into the rest of the known universe... done so by a 2 hour or so connection from 'cuse to NYC, and a quick connection from Albany to 'cuse as well.

First, with respect to NY to Syracuse... just look at a map. Again, to make that trip in even close to 2 hours, even with a high speed train, you are going to need to do it in more or less a straight line which is impractical considering that there is nothing between New York and Syracuse in that straight line. You would essentially be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to connect New York to a city of 100,000 people. Great idea! Add on an additional 45 minutes to Rochester and another 45 minutes to Buffalo. And when you talk about Japan, yes, a good portion of their high speed rail does run along their flatter plains. Oh, and most of the Japanese think their government's massive spending on infrastructure was a gigantic waste of money.Second, what do you expect would happen if people could suddenly travel from Western NY on a train to New York in 2 hours? That's not close enough to commute. That's not close enough for any significant economic ties (certainly none that would not have already been fostered by existing plane travel). By your logic, the Fast Ferry that they spent millions of dollars on to run between Rochester and Toronto would have been a big success.... It wasn't. It went bankrupt in less than a year.The reason that the Upstate NY cities are dying is not because they lack rail access to New York. I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why Californians have been fleeing to other states in the last several years.

(1) Perhaps it will be 2.5 hours - and you do have a good point in regard to the likelihood that Syracuse to NYC wouldnt make sense, it would likely be 'cuse to Albany to NYC. Even so, it would be a much faster means to get there, and by connecting the upstate economy through Albany to the rest of the world, economic benefits would occur. Significant ones.(2) Syracuse is not a City of 100,000 - at least not in true context. While I believe the City proper population is about 139,000, we are talking about a Metro area of 650,000 - one of the 100 largest in the nation. That is what counts - and that is a signficant market that has tremendous current infrastructure and knowledge infrastructure that can be used as a foundation for future economic and social growth.(3) When did I claim that people would commute to 'cuse? The idea is not commuting, just connecting. Right now, 'cuse is so far out of the mind and economic reach of lower tier NYS and connecting via high speed rail would overcome this to a signficant degree. If you don't believe that is close enough for economic ties, we will agree to disagree. The market analysts and researchers I work with seem to think otherwise. (4) I can't speak for the Ferry of which you speak, as I dont know any details.(5) Why are they fleeing? Taxation? You understand why taxes are going up? (hint: continued sprawl, strained infrastructure, lack of being included in the national economy so as to lose out on economic drivers and growth, loss of industrial tax base which leads to higher taxes and a declining economy which further strains the remaining tax base forcing more to move to better economic conditions, further depleting the residential and commercial tax base).I am not claiming that 'cuse will become a metropolis... but a market of over 650,000 with growth in the health sectors, signficiant cultural and knowledge infrastructure and an opportunity to capitalize on its role as a regional center is a market that could see signficiant positive economic and social gains by inclusion into the larger economy via high speed rail as part of an overall holisitic approach to improving the economic standing of the region.

 

[Koya]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

Trains don't have to make money - that is why it is a proper place for the federal and local governments to be involved. Does our highway system make a profit? Should we abandon any future road construction and maintenance unless a private company takes over and makes money? (serious question, would like to know your answer).Do you think NYC would be the epicenter of the world in a number of facets if not for the MTA, "black hole" or not?

 

[Socrates11]

I can say this... there is talk about high speed rail for upstate NY. THIS is a perfect place for such an endeavor. Albany, Syracuse, Rochester especially, could be an hour to two hours from NYC. That includes Syracuse and rochester in the economy of the rest of the world as has not been the case before.

For example, I have a meeting in March up in 'cuse - do I fly in? such a pain. Drive? its 5 hours. Train? Still 5 hours. If it were 2 hours, that is an easy day trip, even less than a day's trip to go there, have a meeting, come back and still make it to the office for a couple hours if need be. Such a connection would have a multiplier economic effect for cities and regions that have lost their manufacturing base, yet are located too far from major tier cities to have much of an economic drawo outside of their regional significance.

LA to LV on the otherhand, Im not so convinced about... SF to LA would be nice, and there is an obvious connection there, but that would be money better spent on making LA less auto dependent and reducing traffic and sprawl in the bay area, rather than just connecting the two cities more effeciently. Make the cities themselves, more effecient first.

I don't think you understand the geography of Upstate NY very well. Having a 2-hour train trip from Rochester to New York even under the most advanced rail system is highly unrealistic. And even if it were remotely possible, to achieve that time you would need individual rail lines built in straight lines from New York to each individual city in Upstate New York (instead of running through each city). Of course, in doing so you would have to traverse the very hilly Southern Tier which would make for astronomical costs on top of what is already a pie in the sky idea.Oh, and you also discount the fact that there is only a minimal economic or demographic connection between Upstate New York and New York City and thereby simply is so little demand or need for such a rail line.

But, ya, it's still a fantastic idea.

I used the 2 hour trip for NYC to Syracuse - we are talking high speed rail here. If you get there in 5 now, why shouldnt a true high speed rail not be able to at least cut that in half? I understand the geography can be tough - is the Geography in Japan for their high speed rail one long plain?Second, my WHOLE point is that there is almost no economic or demographic connection between the two regions today - namely because its 5 freakin' hours to the middle of no where as compared to NYC. The whole point of a high speed rail would be to INCLUDE the southern tier upstate economy into the rest of the known universe... done so by a 2 hour or so connection from 'cuse to NYC, and a quick connection from Albany to 'cuse as well.

First, with respect to NY to Syracuse... just look at a map. Again, to make that trip in even close to 2 hours, even with a high speed train, you are going to need to do it in more or less a straight line which is impractical considering that there is nothing between New York and Syracuse in that straight line. You would essentially be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to connect New York to a city of 100,000 people. Great idea! Add on an additional 45 minutes to Rochester and another 45 minutes to Buffalo. And when you talk about Japan, yes, a good portion of their high speed rail does run along their flatter plains. Oh, and most of the Japanese think their government's massive spending on infrastructure was a gigantic waste of money.Second, what do you expect would happen if people could suddenly travel from Western NY on a train to New York in 2 hours? That's not close enough to commute. That's not close enough for any significant economic ties (certainly none that would not have already been fostered by existing plane travel).

By your logic, the Fast Ferry that they spent millions of dollars on to run between Rochester and Toronto would have been a big success.... It wasn't. It went bankrupt in less than a year.

The reason that the Upstate NY cities are dying is not because they lack rail access to New York. I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why Californians have been fleeing to other states in the last several years.

Don't forget that increased costs the rail line would incur during the winter in Central/Western NY just to remove the snow.

 

[Socrates11]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

Trains don't have to make money - that is why it is a proper place for the federal and local governments to be involved. Does our highway system make a profit? Should we abandon any future road construction and maintenance unless a private company takes over and makes money? (serious question, would like to know your answer).Do you think NYC would be the epicenter of the world in a number of facets if not for the MTA, "black hole" or not?

Wha?Oh and the highway system makes TONS of money if you factor in taxes and fees for transportation, shipping, etc. Even families taking road trips stop along the way for food, etc. They're spending money and paying taxes. We don't need commuter trains anywhere near as much as we need a highway system.

 

[Redwes25]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

Trains don't have to make money - that is why it is a proper place for the federal and local governments to be involved. Does our highway system make a profit? Should we abandon any future road construction and maintenance unless a private company takes over and makes money? (serious question, would like to know your answer).Do you think NYC would be the epicenter of the world in a number of facets if not for the MTA, "black hole" or not?

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I was referring to the reference that the rail line would pay for itself and I quoted the wrong post. As you point out this system would be heavily subsidized. I tend to disagree on whether trains or roads show (in the form of tolls) should make money. It would sure prevent sprawl if the govt weren't subsidizing development with expanding the roadway system. Of course portions of the NY subway system was run as profit making enterprise for a long time (e.g. the IRT) and think it should return to its roots even though fares woud go up and the guys who sit in the subway booths and don't sell tickets would get fired. Also, I don't see why the government should continue to throw good money after bad in supporting Amtrak, etc.... Also, think the subway system has had little impact in making NYC the world epicenter and was a result of the NYC growing. The city grows so it expands the subway system to meet that growth. The subway did not make NYC what it is but rather it was a result of what the city became.

 

[Koya]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

Trains don't have to make money - that is why it is a proper place for the federal and local governments to be involved. Does our highway system make a profit? Should we abandon any future road construction and maintenance unless a private company takes over and makes money? (serious question, would like to know your answer).Do you think NYC would be the epicenter of the world in a number of facets if not for the MTA, "black hole" or not?

Wha?Oh and the highway system makes TONS of money if you factor in taxes and fees for transportation, shipping, etc. Even families taking road trips stop along the way for food, etc. They're spending money and paying taxes. We don't need commuter trains anywhere near as much as we need a highway system.

Without significant improvement in commuter trains (less so with high speed rail), our highway system will become utterly innadequate in a matter of decades, if not sooner. We have already maxed out capacity in many regions. It is this type of thinking - looking for reasons not to find solutions and looking for more status quo in the face of economic collapse due to such shortsighted planning (or lack thereof) - that has gotten our nation into this mess. Similar thinking certainly won't get us out.

 

[Koya]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

Trains don't have to make money - that is why it is a proper place for the federal and local governments to be involved. Does our highway system make a profit? Should we abandon any future road construction and maintenance unless a private company takes over and makes money? (serious question, would like to know your answer).Do you think NYC would be the epicenter of the world in a number of facets if not for the MTA, "black hole" or not?

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I was referring to the reference that the rail line would pay for itself and I quoted the wrong post. As you point out this system would be heavily subsidized. I tend to disagree on whether trains or roads show (in the form of tolls) should make money. It would sure prevent sprawl if the govt weren't subsidizing development with expanding the roadway system. Of course portions of the NY subway system was run as profit making enterprise for a long time (e.g. the IRT) and think it should return to its roots even though fares woud go up and the guys who sit in the subway booths and don't sell tickets would get fired. Also, I don't see why the government should continue to throw good money after bad in supporting Amtrak, etc.... Also, think the subway system has had little impact in making NYC the world epicenter and was a result of the NYC growing. The city grows so it expands the subway system to meet that growth. The subway did not make NYC what it is but rather it was a result of what the city became.

While the subways did not make NY grow, without them, NY would not have been able so sustain growth. To me, thats one and the same. In short, without the Subway system, is NY what it is today? (no... how would you get everyone in and around? certainly not by car and bus without the subway).

 

[StrikeS2k]

Hey,

If you guys want to debate the merits of rail, whether it be commuter or not, please start your own thread. This one was started to discuss the fact that the socialists in Sacramento are screwing the state up even more with exorbitant tax increases at a time when no taxes should be increased. I apologize for getting in to the debate about rail myself yesterday but I'd really like to get this thread back on track.

TIA

 

[Redwes25]

Not much substance in the article. He also engages in misconstruing information presented in the study (the second link I provided) - for instance the ridership estimates he quotes are projections for 2030 in the study and include transit systems connecting to the high speed rail, but he doesn't bother to mention those distinctions in his article. There are more problems like that in the article you've linked. I hope you're not basing your opinion regarding this on that article.

So you actually believe this line will get used by 117 MILLION people annually in 2030? He gave pretty good context in noting that only 29 MILLION use AMTRAK today, NATIONWIDE. So I ask again. You actually believe 117 MILLION people will use this annually in 2030?

AMTRAK != local transit. Thanks for highlighting another problem with the article you posted.

ROFLMAO. You didn't answer the question. THis is about usage, not how far the train goes. And, to your point, do you consider traveling from LA to SF local? Again, Amtrak's Acela line is pretty much comparable to this line in terms of distance and it ONLY carries 3 million a year. You're not helping your case!!!!So, answer my specific question. Do you think this line will carry 117 million people by 2030? It's a simple yes/no question.

Firstly, you realize the high speed trains make intra-city stops right? That it's not just L.A. to S.F. the project is covering, right? More importantly your question isn't applicable as the study doesn't talk about one particular line carrying 117 million people - it talks about the overall rail system carrying 117 million people. Do I think the entire rail system will handle 117 million people by then? Maybe, it depends on whether demographic projections are accurate and how far they get with the project. But that's what I'm talking about, the article you presented misstates things purposefully to try and make points. Read the actual study, then get back to me. It's pointless to continue this discussion until you are familiar with the source material.

I am not going to get in the debate about number of people carried, etc... However, if anyone thinks that local train lines make money you should go look at the NYC MTA since that place is a blackhole where public funds go and are never seen again.

Trains don't have to make money - that is why it is a proper place for the federal and local governments to be involved. Does our highway system make a profit? Should we abandon any future road construction and maintenance unless a private company takes over and makes money? (serious question, would like to know your answer).Do you think NYC would be the epicenter of the world in a number of facets if not for the MTA, "black hole" or not?

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I was referring to the reference that the rail line would pay for itself and I quoted the wrong post. As you point out this system would be heavily subsidized. I tend to disagree on whether trains or roads show (in the form of tolls) should make money. It would sure prevent sprawl if the govt weren't subsidizing development with expanding the roadway system. Of course portions of the NY subway system was run as profit making enterprise for a long time (e.g. the IRT) and think it should return to its roots even though fares woud go up and the guys who sit in the subway booths and don't sell tickets would get fired. Also, I don't see why the government should continue to throw good money after bad in supporting Amtrak, etc.... Also, think the subway system has had little impact in making NYC the world epicenter and was a result of the NYC growing. The city grows so it expands the subway system to meet that growth. The subway did not make NYC what it is but rather it was a result of what the city became.

While the subways did not make NY grow, without them, NY would not have been able so sustain growth. To me, thats one and the same. In short, without the Subway system, is NY what it is today? (no... how would you get everyone in and around? certainly not by car and bus without the subway).

You would have a very different city. But that does not mean you don't have a major city here. This debate is also pointless since much of the NYC subway system was built or began being built before the cars become so engrained in our country post WWII. But a city can clearly grow into a major city without a great train based public transit city (see LA)

 

[OC Zed]

I can say this... there is talk about high speed rail for upstate NY. THIS is a perfect place for such an endeavor. Albany, Syracuse, Rochester especially, could be an hour to two hours from NYC. That includes Syracuse and rochester in the economy of the rest of the world as has not been the case before. For example, I have a meeting in March up in 'cuse - do I fly in? such a pain. Drive? its 5 hours. Train? Still 5 hours. If it were 2 hours, that is an easy day trip, even less than a day's trip to go there, have a meeting, come back and still make it to the office for a couple hours if need be. Such a connection would have a multiplier economic effect for cities and regions that have lost their manufacturing base, yet are located too far from major tier cities to have much of an economic drawo outside of their regional significance.LA to LV on the otherhand, Im not so convinced about... SF to LA would be nice, and there is an obvious connection there, but that would be money better spent on making LA less auto dependent and reducing traffic and sprawl in the bay area, rather than just connecting the two cities more effeciently. Make the cities themselves, more effecient first.

I don't think you understand the geography of Upstate NY very well. Having a 2-hour train trip from Rochester to New York even under the most advanced rail system is highly unrealistic. And even if it were remotely possible, to achieve that time you would need individual rail lines built in straight lines from New York to each individual city in Upstate New York (instead of running through each city). Of course, in doing so you would have to traverse the very hilly Southern Tier which would make for astronomical costs on top of what is already a pie in the sky idea.Oh, and you also discount the fact that there is only a minimal economic or demographic connection between Upstate New York and New York City and thereby simply is so little demand or need for such a rail line.But, ya, it's still a fantastic idea.

I used the 2 hour trip for NYC to Syracuse - we are talking high speed rail here. If you get there in 5 now, why shouldnt a true high speed rail not be able to at least cut that in half? I understand the geography can be tough - is the Geography in Japan for their high speed rail one long plain?Second, my WHOLE point is that there is almost no economic or demographic connection between the two regions today - namely because its 5 freakin' hours to the middle of no where as compared to NYC. The whole point of a high speed rail would be to INCLUDE the southern tier upstate economy into the rest of the known universe... done so by a 2 hour or so connection from 'cuse to NYC, and a quick connection from Albany to 'cuse as well.

First, with respect to NY to Syracuse... just look at a map. Again, to make that trip in even close to 2 hours, even with a high speed train, you are going to need to do it in more or less a straight line which is impractical considering that there is nothing between New York and Syracuse in that straight line. You would essentially be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to connect New York to a city of 100,000 people. Great idea! Add on an additional 45 minutes to Rochester and another 45 minutes to Buffalo. And when you talk about Japan, yes, a good portion of their high speed rail does run along their flatter plains. Oh, and most of the Japanese think their government's massive spending on infrastructure was a gigantic waste of money.Second, what do you expect would happen if people could suddenly travel from Western NY on a train to New York in 2 hours? That's not close enough to commute. That's not close enough for any significant economic ties (certainly none that would not have already been fostered by existing plane travel). By your logic, the Fast Ferry that they spent millions of dollars on to run between Rochester and Toronto would have been a big success.... It wasn't. It went bankrupt in less than a year.The reason that the Upstate NY cities are dying is not because they lack rail access to New York. I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason why Californians have been fleeing to other states in the last several years.

(1) Perhaps it will be 2.5 hours - and you do have a good point in regard to the likelihood that Syracuse to NYC wouldnt make sense, it would likely be 'cuse to Albany to NYC. Even so, it would be a much faster means to get there, and by connecting the upstate economy through Albany to the rest of the world, economic benefits would occur. Significant ones.(2) Syracuse is not a City of 100,000 - at least not in true context. While I believe the City proper population is about 139,000, we are talking about a Metro area of 650,000 - one of the 100 largest in the nation. That is what counts - and that is a signficant market that has tremendous current infrastructure and knowledge infrastructure that can be used as a foundation for future economic and social growth.(3) When did I claim that people would commute to 'cuse? The idea is not commuting, just connecting. Right now, 'cuse is so far out of the mind and economic reach of lower tier NYS and connecting via high speed rail would overcome this to a signficant degree. If you don't believe that is close enough for economic ties, we will agree to disagree. The market analysts and researchers I work with seem to think otherwise. (4) I can't speak for the Ferry of which you speak, as I dont know any details.(5) Why are they fleeing? Taxation? You understand why taxes are going up? (hint: continued sprawl, strained infrastructure, lack of being included in the national economy so as to lose out on economic drivers and growth, loss of industrial tax base which leads to higher taxes and a declining economy which further strains the remaining tax base forcing more to move to better economic conditions, further depleting the residential and commercial tax base).I am not claiming that 'cuse will become a metropolis... but a market of over 650,000 with growth in the health sectors, signficiant cultural and knowledge infrastructure and an opportunity to capitalize on its role as a regional center is a market that could see signficiant positive economic and social gains by inclusion into the larger economy via high speed rail as part of an overall holisitic approach to improving the economic standing of the region.

We can around and around on this, but I urge you to look into the history of the Fast Ferry between Rochester and Toronto. It was a gigantic taxpayer boondoggle that was sold to the public for the very same reasons you are explaining now. And it failed miserably. And one last point to return this issue to California (at least in a strained tangent)... Upstate New York is not dieing due to continued sprawl or being disconnected to the national economy. It has been dieing a slow death for the past 30 years due to high taxation and over-regulation (due to policies set forth by downstate politicians). Not surprisingly we are seeing this same trend in California today.

 

[Zot]

This tax package includes a DOUBLING of the vehicle license fee. Gray Davis was recalled because he tripled it, which was then repealed by Arnie as a part of the tax revolt. There is no way the people of California are to sit back and take a doubling of the tax on every car they have. That is a massive tax hike. People are going to feel that.

Already people are trying to organize a new tax revolt to recall the 3 key politicians in this deal.

http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandkenshow/index.html

http://recallmaldonado.com/RecallMaldonado.com

 

[Zot]

SacBee has an online tax calculator to show you the impact this tax has on you if you live in California.

http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1627728.html

 

[Zot]

The best part is Hollywood is getting tax breaks as part of this. So all those liberal Hollywood producers that scold everyone on how much more taxes everyone needs to pay? People like Rob Reiner? Their taxes are getting cut.

 

[StrikeS2k]

SacBee has an online tax calculator to show you the impact this tax has on you if you live in California.

http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1627728.html

Wow, only two days after I posted that :(

 

[Zot]

link

Calif. lawmakers send Schwarzenegger budget bills

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press Writer Judy Lin, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 21 mins ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The California Legislature on Thursday approved a plan to close a $42 billion budget deficit after an epic impasse that involved several all-night sessions, sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a package of bills that raises taxes and cuts spending. It was not immediately clear when Schwarzenegger would sign the bills

Senate leaders secured the final vote needed from moderate Republican Abel Maldonado in late-night negotiations by agreeing to his demands for election changes, government reform and removal of a 12-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase, giving them the two-thirds vote needed to pass the package.

Maldonado brought out a photograph of Reagan at a tax bill signing in 1972. He said he never thought he would have to defend California against members of his own party.

"This is not about my political career. This is about the health and safety for the people of California," Maldonado said. "My friends, this might be the end for me. This ensures it's not the end for California."

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Sarnoff]

We've been through this before, and I've presented you with as much information to show I'm correct in my thinking as you have supporting yours in past threads. We're not going to agree on it. And couching things in phrases like "dumbest ideas ever" makes taking you seriously an even tougher sell.

Can I take this as a YES; that you did in fact vote for the high speed rail line between So. Cal. and San Francisco?

Absolutely. Go ahead and read this and this for starters and get back to me with your discussion of how their conclusions are incorrect.

Thanks a lot http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia...ry/2484870.html

Dan Walters: California high-speed rail project's flaws publicized

By Dan Walters

dwalters@sacbee.com The Sacramento Bee

Published: Sunday, Jan. 24, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 3A

The first episode of a new network television series, "Human Target," is set aboard the maiden run of a high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The story involves a plot to kill its designer, financial chicanery by its contractor, and a fatal flaw in its braking system.

The show concludes with the runaway train demolishing itself, which could be an omen.

By happenstance, the episode premiered last week just before state senators delved into the real – or perhaps fictional – California high-speed rail project.

They examined a report from the Legislature's budget office that's highly critical of the High-Speed Rail Authority's much-touted business plan and a legislative staff report that echoes the criticism and adds grave doubts of its own.

The twin reports provide potent ammunition for project critics, especially those from the San Francisco Peninsula who oppose running 200-mile-per-hour trains through their bucolic, affluent neighborhoods.

Peninsula residents, many of them experienced managers and financial analysts, lined up to denounce the business plan's shaky – even outlandish – assumptions about ridership, fares, construction costs and operational margins.

Curt Pringle, the Anaheim mayor who chairs the rail authority, found himself on the defensive as senators used the staff reports to sharply question aspects of the project, especially its suppositions and what legislative budget analyst Eric Thornson said is the agency's "wholly inadequate" consideration of downside financial risks.

Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, pressed Pringle on the assumption that the federal government would pick up half the system's $40 billion projected cost. "Is that a wish?" Lowenthal asked. "It's a hope," Pringle replied.

Even the pro-high-speed-rail California Rail Foundation found the project lacking, with its representative telling senators, "We can't believe any of the numbers presented in the business plan."

At one point in the "Human Target" episode, its hero, a personal bodyguard named Christopher Chance, is told that the train cost $80 billion and complains about his taxes paying for it.

One suspects that the TV show's $80 billion is more realistic than the $40 billion projected by the rail authority, given the immense delays and cost overruns on other major public works projects in California, such as the still-unfinished overhaul of the Bay Bridge or any number of half-baked state government computer projects.

The gaping holes in the business plan must be filled with hard facts and reliable numbers – if they can be filled – before we begin selling and spending the $9.95 billion in state bonds.

It would be better to derail now rather than plunge California into a bottomless money pit that would once again make it a global laughingstock.

 

[Sarnoff]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010...al-analyst.html

High-speed rail plan flawed, says Legislature's financial analyst

January 11, 2010 | 4:44 pm

There is a major flaw in the business plan for the $42.6-billion state high-speed rail network that would run from San Diego to San Francisco, according to the legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal watchdog.

Among the concerns expressed in a new report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office is that the state High-Speed Rail Authority failed to adequately consider what happens if few people ride the new trains, opening a potentially huge funding gap. Eric Thronson, a fiscal and policy analyst for the office, called a risk assessment in the business plan “incomplete and inappropriate for a project of this magnitude.’’

Thronson warned that there is no backup plan to keep the rail system solvent if it fails to draw 41 million people yearly. A bond measure approved by voters to help pay for the train network prohibits public funds from being spent on operating costs.

Thronson submitted his report at a hearing of the Assembly Transportation Committee. Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) said he likes it when people make bold proposals, like the train system, but added, "So did Don Quixote. I have huge concerns about this project.’’

Jeff Barker, a spokesman for the state authority proposing the system, said all risk would be addressed in the future, when the authority enters into contracts with private groups spelling out how much they would invest in building the project and the extent to which they would be on the hook financially if ridership falls short of expectations.

-- Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

Spain, described by the New York Times as an "enthusiastic latecomer to high-speed rail," could be the model for the US and its recent rail-boosting measures, according to the paper. Looking at the country's Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) rail, a project that'll have 10,000 kilometers of track by 2020, the paper notes the train is "prompting traditionally home-bound Spaniards to move around for work or leisure." There is a downside, (and one that's particularly important to cash-strapped California), according to Iñaki Barrón de Angoiti, director of high-speed rail at the International Union of Railways in Paris. He tells the paper: "High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even." [NY Times]

 

[Koya]

"High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. [NY Times]

Now, switch "high-speed rail" with "roadway infrastructure" and tell me we don't have the same answer for the good of society part (and not even so for the environment).The fact is, good national infrastructure is not a money maker. THAT'S why it's the realm of the gov't, and appropriately so. I forget who said it, maybe it was Chris Leinberger of the Brookings Institution: We have 1/2 of a world class transportation system. For autos. But the public componenent, especially rail, is utterly lacking.

FWIW, building up the latter would certainly help defray some of the maintenance cost of the former, no? More train riders = less cars, less pot holes etc.

Anyway, the point is rail is not supposed to break even without broader context. Just as the Eisenhower road system was and is not.

However, the overall benefit to society - even in hard economic terms - for having a truly complete world class transportation system (private AND public) easily makes up for the investment needed, imo.

 

[Sarnoff]

"High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. [NY Times]

Now, switch "high-speed rail" with "roadway infrastructure" and tell me we don't have the same answer for the good of society part (and not even so for the environment).The fact is, good national infrastructure is not a money maker. THAT'S why it's the realm of the gov't, and appropriately so. I forget who said it, maybe it was Chris Leinberger of the Brookings Institution: We have 1/2 of a world class transportation system. For autos. But the public componenent, especially rail, is utterly lacking.

FWIW, building up the latter would certainly help defray some of the maintenance cost of the former, no? More train riders = less cars, less pot holes etc.

Anyway, the point is rail is not supposed to break even without broader context. Just as the Eisenhower road system was and is not.

However, the overall benefit to society - even in hard economic terms - for having a truly complete world class transportation system (private AND public) easily makes up for the investment needed, imo.

Well, then California was really stupid to pass a law saying public funds can't be spent on future operating costs, no?If it's not supposed to break even, it's never going to live up to the constraints already put on it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Why is California Broke?

Summary, from end of article:

The answer to the question Why Is California Broke? should now be quite apparent.

* California has a horrible business climate that drives business elsewhere.

* California has an array of some of the highest tax rates in the nation.

* California is beholden to the unions, especially the teachers union and prison system, and at the municipal level to the police and fire unions.

* California hands out money with free services encouraging an influx of illegal aliens and an exodus of those wealthy enough and mobile enough to move.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...rnia-broke.html

 

[Koya]

Well, then California was really stupid to pass a law saying public funds can't be spent on future operating costs, no?

If it's not supposed to break even, it's never going to live up to the constraints already put on it.

It certainly wouldnt be the first time a gov't mandated program / goal was impossible to reach.IIRC, a number of provisions in CA Senate Bill 375 are just pipe dreams as well.

In regard to roads, they can say what they want about not funding, but emergency expenditures will have to happen. Unless someone can show me otherwise.

 

[snowmonkey501]

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[Sarnoff]

Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, pressed Pringle on the assumption that the federal government would pick up half the system's $40 billion projected cost. "Is that a wish?" Lowenthal asked. "It's a hope," Pringle replied.

Yay! The rest of America is gonna drop 2.25 billion dollars of their money into our boondoggle. Thanks suckers!

 

[videoguy505]

MagLev money going to road-widening around McCarran instead:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/1...t-road-project/

$45 million for maglev shifted to airport road project

Funds previously promised to go toward building a maglev train between Los Angeles and Las Vegas will likely now be used to make improvements to the Interstate 215 connector to McCarran International Airport.

The shifting of $45 million in federal transportation funds comes as part of the Senate’s passage of a jobs bill that now goes to President Barack Obama.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the money earmarked for the maglev project will now go to the Nevada Department of Transportation with the intent that they be used for the airport connector road.

“Following discussions with and the recommendations from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, McCarran Airport, the City of Henderson and the Nevada Department of Transportation, we agreed that redirecting the funds from maglev to NDOT, with the intent that the money be applied to widening the airport connector at McCarran and 215, will have the biggest immediate impact for job creation and relief from traffic congestion,” Reid said in a statement. “I urge the governor to put these funds to work immediately to protect Nevadans’ jobs and ensure the completion of a project that will result in reduced congestion for a faster, safer commute.”

Sen. John Ensign voted against the bill.

State transportation department officials said they didn't specifically request money be diverted from the maglev project, but they were happy the funds would go to a road project.

“Any bill that brings construction jobs to Nevada is good news,” NDOT spokesman Scott Magruder said.

Regional Transportation Commission spokeswoman Tracy Bower said the project has been on the commission’s priority list for years.

Clark County spokeswoman Jennifer Knight said the money from the jobs bill goes to NDOT, so it will be up to the state to decide whether it will delegate the money to the county for the project.

The county applied last year for stimulus money through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s TIGER grant program for this project, but was denied.

In that application, the county said the project was “shovel-ready” and would provide 1,450 full-time construction jobs for two years. The $140 million project is expected to take 2 1/2 years to complete.

The project application says the project will include a new ramp for connector traffic to reach eastbound 215, and will widen the beltway from six lanes to eight lanes between Las Vegas Boulevard and Windmill Lane.

The project is designed to fit in the county’s existing beltway right-of-way, limiting the impact on nearby homes and businesses, according to the TIGER grant documents.

Reid was once a supporter of the proposal to build a high-speed magnetic levitation train to Las Vegas, but switched his support last summer to the privately funded DesertXpress project, which would build a traditional steel-wheel train from Las Vegas to Victorville.

But the American Maglev Group, which would build the train for the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, said in January it still expected to get the $45 million Reid previously helped to secure for the project.

When the U.S. Department of Transportation announced the award of $8 billion for 13 projects to build high-speed train systems along existing train corridors on Jan. 29, Las Vegas wasn’t on the list.

DesertXpress didn’t seek the funds and Reid and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the maglev group didn’t apply.

The commission said it did apply, and in February, maglev backers said a Chinese government-controlled bank agreed to loan up to $7 billion for the project.

In a statement released late Wednesday, spokesman Mark Fierro said the California-Nevada Super Speed Train commission will continue to try to get the money from the Federal Railroad Administration.

“It is unfortunate that Senator Reid has again announced his intention to ‘re-direct’ $45 million in seed money that two previous Congresses (2005 and 2008) and one president (Bush) designated for the state of Nevada to commence construction of the fastest train in the world to connect Las Vegas and Anaheim,” Fierro said. “This money -- the result of 20 years of effort by three governors, 10 legislatures and a state agency … will begin creation of 90,000 jobs for the working men and women of Southern Nevada.”

 

[OC Zed]

 

[Peggy Starfish]

Shocker that that was in Harry Reid's home state.

 

[Peggy Starfish]

California is a true example of what failed policies, over taxation and an overall liberal policy will do to a state/country.

The United States economy right now is a true example of what failed policies, under-regulation and an overall conservative policy will do to a country.

Ahhh the Democratic playbook. Cast George Bush as a typical, even architypical conservative and then paint all conservatives with that Brush. The truth matyters not, just so long as the propaganda is effective through incessent bombardment.

Works for me.George W. Bush cut taxes, decreased regulation, scorned international tribunals, and was hawkish when it came to the US military. All that sounds pretty arch conservative to me. I'm sure you can be a conservative and not match on all of those, but most likely, you will.

It's certainly more honest than looking back at his years, saying he's terrible, and then saying the reason he was terrible was because he didn't live up to those ideals enough. Or that you're not responsible for George W. Bush because you're no longer a Republican but are now simply an "independent" even though you voted for Bush twice. That's the true propaganda.

This is so stupid. Enron and the Big 5 accounting firm disasters happened primarily during Clinton's regime. Both parties are to blame for placing financial support from big business over anything relating to business principles. I've never seen the Dems, who you praise as being stricter, support much by way of "oversight" other than outright bans against certain types of financial instruments (a very rigid, simplistic and frankly lazy approach to such problems).

Let's also not forget that the Dems just threw an astonishing amount of money to the very bankers who you are saying weren't regulated enough after those very same bankers engaged in the idiotic lending practices that led us down this road. "Too big to fail" has far more to do with politics than economics.

Both parties suck and it's time that people figured that out.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Shocker that that was in Harry Reid's home state.

Indeed. Not sure why anyone would be surprised that Reid is a crook.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Why don't California voters demand accountability and fiscal responsibility from their elected officials? What is the range of solutions to deal with this mess?

 

[dickey moe]

Why don't California voters demand accountability and fiscal responsibility from their elected officials? What is the range of solutions to deal with this mess?

Voting. Any other feasible solutions would probably be illegal.

 

[Ray Stevens]

Why don't California voters demand accountability and fiscal responsibility from their elected officials?

Because California voters are just about the dumbest group people you'll ever find. They created many of the fiscal problems that exist directly through ballot propositions. Signed,A guy who has lived in California his entire life

 

[Pat Patriot]

Works for me.

George W. Bush cut taxes, decreased regulation, scorned international tribunals, and was hawkish when it came to the US military. All that sounds pretty arch conservative to me. I'm sure you can be a conservative and not match on all of those, but most likely, you will.

It's certainly more honest than looking back at his years, saying he's terrible, and then saying the reason he was terrible was because he didn't live up to those ideals enough. Or that you're not responsible for George W. Bush because you're no longer a Republican but are now simply an "independent" even though you voted for Bush twice. That's the true propaganda.

The liberals might want to regulate big business but they dont want to regulate their citizenry. It was the erosion of lending standards pushed by Bush and the Democrats and the "everyone deserves to own their home" which led to the need for TARP. The bolded above are the aspects of Bush's Presidency that I agreed with as a conservative. It was his spending policies that were anti-conservative (those policies include the prescription drug program and the ill conceived no child left behind policy).

 

[videoguy505]

Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

 

[Phurfur]

Works for me.

George W. Bush cut taxes, decreased regulation, scorned international tribunals, and was hawkish when it came to the US military. All that sounds pretty arch conservative to me. I'm sure you can be a conservative and not match on all of those, but most likely, you will.

It's certainly more honest than looking back at his years, saying he's terrible, and then saying the reason he was terrible was because he didn't live up to those ideals enough. Or that you're not responsible for George W. Bush because you're no longer a Republican but are now simply an "independent" even though you voted for Bush twice. That's the true propaganda.

The liberals might want to regulate big business but they dont want to regulate their citizenry. It was the erosion of lending standards pushed by Bush and the Democrats and the "everyone deserves to own their home" which led to the need for TARP. The bolded above are the aspects of Bush's Presidency that I agreed with as a conservative. It was his spending policies that were anti-conservative (those policies include the prescription drug program and the ill conceived no child left behind policy).

This is true but it started in the early 90s.

 

[jonessed]

Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

Ironically, CA is a good example of how to regulate and tax yourself out of revenue. Unfortunately for those who stay and can't afford a private education for their kids the educational system is the one that is really taking the big hits. Any state that has a poor K-12 public system and high unemployment is doomed. It's what happens when public unions take full control of the government. It's the same problem the Federal government has with corporations. The pay to play system is so entrenched that there will never be enough resources to keep up with the payouts. With CA though it's not even an indirect funding in most cases. Unions donate directly to the people that negotiate their contracts and load up their pensions. More and more companies are opting not to play the game anymore and are simply moving out of state. There is really no reason that a diverse economy like CA should hae unemployment and budget problems like Michigan.

 

[zander_s]

Why don't California voters demand accountability and fiscal responsibility from their elected officials?

Because California voters are just about the dumbest group people you'll ever find. They created many of the fiscal problems that exist directly through ballot propositions. Signed,A guy who has lived in California his entire life

Sadly you are correct. The majority of Cal voters have no idea what they are voting on when it comes to the props!

 

[MasterofOrion]

Can't wait for the "up to 28%" rate increase in utilities to kick in, to pay for "green jobs" for gov't employee unions!

Ironically, CA is a good example of how to regulate and tax yourself out of revenue. Unfortunately for those who stay and can't afford a private education for their kids the educational system is the one that is really taking the big hits. Any state that has a poor K-12 public system and high unemployment is doomed. It's a good example of what happens when public unions take full control of the government. It's the same problem the Federal government has with corporations. The pay to play system is so entrenched that there will never be enough resources to keep up with the payouts. With CA though it's not even an indirect funding in most cases. Unions donate directly to the people that negotiate their contracts and load up their pensions. More and more companies are opting not to play the game anymore and are simply moving out of state. There is really no reason that a diverse economy like CA should hae unemployment and budget problems like Michigan.

Great posting

 

[videoguy505]

Anyone have $535 Billion dollars we can borrow? Or just $360 billion right now, so we could have an 80% chance of meeting 80% of our obligations in just 16 years?

State pension shortfall totals $535 billion

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer

Updated: 04/05/2010 07:36:50 PM PDT

California's public retirement plans are underfunded by more than a half trillion dollars, equal to about $36,000 per household and far exceeding previous estimates, according to a report released today by Stanford University.

In the policy brief, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research warns $360 billion would have to be injected into pension and health care benefit systems immediately just to have an 80 percent chance of meeting 80 percent of the obligations in 16 years.

The report also predicts there is a 44 percent chance the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) alone will have a shortfall of more than $250 billion over the next 16 years.

Joe Nation, co-author of the report and director of the graduate student practicum in public policy at Stanford, said the magnitude of the shortfall is much greater than what many economists had expected.

"It is such a gargantuan number," Nation said. "If you have a state budget general fund of $85 billion, and you are short a half a trillion dollars, it's going to be very tough to make up that shortfall."

In recent years, California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which has spearheaded several pension reform measures, has estimated the shortfall for government pensions and health care benefits is about $300 billion. But foundation President Marcia Fritz said Stanford's estimate is probably more accurate because elected officials have boosted benefits while underfunding the systems for decades.

Fritz said the $535 billion shortfall estimated by the Stanford report means every household in the state is on the hook for about $36,000.

"That's how much they owe to government workers for their retirement benefits," Fritz said.

"It's not like they will have to send a check to pay for it. But they will see it in higher classroom sizes, roads that aren't repaired, parks that are closed, fewer policemen, far fewer firefighters and government offices that are probably going to be closed even more than we are seeing today."

Representatives from CalPERS and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) did not return calls for comment.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said he isn't surprised by Stanford's estimate.

"This is the ticking time bomb that fiscal conservatives have been identifying for a decade now," Coupal said. "As soon as (former Gov.) Gray Davis granted those enhanced pension benefits, we've been like the Cassandra who warns everybody, but whose words are not heeded.

"And still, even right now, the Legislature is returning from its Easter break and they should change the rules by statute today. But they won't because there are too many powerful special interests invested in the status quo."

In the brief, Nation and five of his graduate students wrote that the CalPERS, CalSTRS and the University of California Retirement System had an adjusted funding shortfall of $425 billion in July 1, 2008. Since then, the funds have lost an additional $110 billion in value.

"The study found that previously published figures about California's pensions really don't tell the truth of the story of how underfunded the pension systems are now," said Cameron Percy, a Stanford graduate student and co-author of the report.

As a way to begin addressing the shortfall, the authors recommend elected officials take several steps, including steady contributions, rather than the erratic ones some funds have chosen; managing assets in a way that limits volatility; and setting sustainable benefit levels through a hybrid 401k/defined benefit plan.

"As pensions take up a larger and larger share of the general fund, that means there will be less money for everything else," Nation said. "Everything else will be squeezed out. If you care about higher education, the outlook is grim. If you want more money for environmental protection, it will be tougher because of these pension pressures.

"These pension obligations will squeeze out all these other things that people care about."

 

[dparker713]

Has a State ever filed for chapter 11?

 

[videoguy505]

Has a State ever filed for chapter 11?

Legally, it can't.Edit: Why.

Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows individuals and municipalities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) to declare bankruptcy. But that doesn't include states. (The statute defines "municipality" as a "political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State"—that is, not a state itself.) For one thing, states are said to have sovereign immunity, as protected by the 11th Amendment, which means they can't be sued. In other words, they don't need any protection from angry creditors who would take them to court for failing to pay their debts. As a result, states can simply borrow money ad infinitum.

Say the state can't make its debt payments, and no one will lend it any more money. In that case, the federal government can step in and put the state into receivership. This would involve the assignment of an accountant to manage the state's debt, overseen by a judge. It would be a lot like bankruptcy, except instead of following a structured set of steps—informing creditors, appointing creditors' committees, a 120-day window to file a plan, etc.—a receiver has the authority to force creditors to renegotiate loans in a speedy fashion. However, the accountant in charge would not have the power to make decisions about the state's budget, such as which programs needed to be cut and which taxes had to be raised. (No state has ever gone into receivership.)

Greece is in a slightly different situation. There's no international bankruptcy court for countries that can't pay their debts. Instead, other EU countries that depend on Greece's solvency, such as Germany or France, would have to agree to bail it out. (When the economy of one member of the Eurozone sinks, it drags the euro down across the continent.) In return for loans, Greece would agree to implement austerity measures, such as hiking the price of gas, freezing government salaries, and raising the retirement age, to steer the country toward solvency. Whichever countries bail out Greece may not get their money back. But at the very least, Greece wouldn't pull the European economy down with it. Another option would be a bailout funded by the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, which have stepped in when the economies of Ecuador, Russia, and numerous African countries have tanked. But their leaders seem reluctant. Worst-case scenario, the EU could expel Greece—Greece's deficit is already four times higher than what the EU allows. But that could hurt the euro as well by signaling to investors that the EU is unstable and thus a risky bet.

 

[videoguy505]

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia...ry/2484870.html

Dan Walters: California high-speed rail project's flaws publicized

It probably won't amount to much but a few cities are looking into repealing the $9.95 billion high-speed rail proposition.

Peninsula cities to consider repealing $10B high-speed rail bond

Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - by Eric Young

Officials from five Peninsula cities on Friday will consider whether to back an effort to repeal the initiative that kicked off California’s bullet train project.

The move comes in response to a few Peninsula residents saying they want to revoke Proposition 1A, the $9.95 billion high-speed train bond approved in 2008, said Richard Cline, mayor of Menlo Park, one of the cities comprising the Peninsula Cities Consortium.

The Peninsula Cities Consortium has regular meetings to study and comment on how the project will impact the region. The other cities in the consortium are Burlingame, Belmont, Palo Alto and Atherton.

Since its formation, the Peninsula Cities Consortium has not advocated overturning Prop. 1A. Instead its has held public sessions to inform residents about the project and has discussed concerns with the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the state-chartered body overseeing planning, financing and construction of the $42 billion project.

The high-speed rail authority is planning to have the bullet train traverse the Peninsula parallel to the existing Caltrain route on its own set of tracks. The overall project would link the Bay Area with southern California and could be operational by 2020.