Trump created the bigly-est govt shutdown ever only to end up with less wall funding than was offered in the beginning. He'll call it winning, provided he actually signs the bill at all.
You are everything wrong with politics today. Trump compromised, took less than all he wanted to keep the government operational. Glad he was the bigger person.
Meh, that goes back to my point of how we should expand eminent domain for transit and limit the ability of localities to use litigation to hold up infrastructure.
After Kelo v. New London do you think there's political appetite for that? HSR is exactly what ED should be used for yet its abuses in the past might have rendered it politically radioactive especially considering we're talking about millions of folks who might have their property seized via ED to make the NEC high speed. This is even before the opposition that arises when ED isn't even in play - witness Ted Kennedy himself arguing against offshore wind farms because they impaired the view from his summer mansion. Now multiply that by 30 million people who will claim some concern (noise from the train, light pollution, parking, you name it and they'll cite it).
ED is like the least challenging part of building HSR in the NEC; if some politician was willing to take the hit there's no Consitutional way to stop it yet the land could be taken via ED and the train will still never get built for 1000s of other reasons.
New whole cloth high speed rail in the NEC isn't even needed. About $50B would buy massive improvements in speed and capacity to the existing corridor and replace infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, narrow/twisty alignments) that in most places predates WW1.
The $150-200B Amtrak wants to build entirely new NEC HSR is excessive.
That's all well and good but thread is about "new whole cloth" HSR between SF and LA. In this case the skeptics proved to have a better handle on the costs, timelines, and eventual fate of the plan. Even if it does get built in the future the business case won't change - it will still cost a huge amount to build, likely won't come close to meeting its operating cost needs much less recover the costs to build it, and ridership projections are being set with facepalm level optimism that doesn't seem warranted. It would be one thing if CA went into this truthfully saying "we know this will be a money pit that will require eternal subsidies but we're building it anyway because it furthers our political beliefs about climate change and the like" but they're not really doing that.
That's all well and good but thread is about "new whole cloth" HSR between SF and LA. In this case the skeptics proved to have a better handle on the costs, timelines, and eventual fate of the plan. Even if it does get built in the future the business case won't change - it will still cost a huge amount to build, likely won't come close to meeting its operating cost needs much less recover the costs to build it, and ridership projections are being set with facepalm level optimism that doesn't seem warranted. It would be one thing if CA went into this truthfully saying "we know this will be a money pit that will require eternal subsidies but we're building it anyway because it furthers our political beliefs about climate change and the like" but they're not really doing that.
The NEC is being discussed, even by yourself in previous posts.
The reasons skeptics gave for opposing the project varied from the reasonable (worries about authority mismanaging the project) to the absurd (nobody will use it). I wouldn't say all, or even many, of the skeptics were correct given the reasons many of them stated which had limited basis in reality. I'm sure they all feel vindicated all the same even if they weren't actually correct in the first place and will mentally frame it thusly.
What fiscal analysis are you using to make these statements? A high speed rail link between the Bay Area and Southern California would easily pay for itself many many times over in economic dividends.
So basically the reason people aren't saying that is because you just made it up, haha.
Yes, I think people can reasonably argue that the implementation they went with was bad, but the idea that high speed rail wouldn't be economically viable between the bay area and southern california is just comically wrong on its face.
EDIT: Also, the purpose of infrastructure is not to make money, it's to promote economic growth, etc. You never hear people say we shouldn't build a road because it will require a subsidy from the state every year for upkeep.
Economic dividends don't buy tickets. We seem to be talking about 2 different things, I'm talking about system operating, construction, and ongoing capital costs and you're talking about larger societal benefits including potential increased non-railroad economic activity or less "carbon emissions". For example NYC's MTA loses about $6b/year and that's an entirely separate consideration from whether NYC as a whole benefits economically.
https://medium.com/@johnnyknocke/th...-dollars-a-year-and-nobody-cares-d0d23093b2d8
When exactly did I-5 finish paying for itself? Or LAX for that matter?That's all well and good but thread is about "new whole cloth" HSR between SF and LA. In this case the skeptics proved to have a better handle on the costs, timelines, and eventual fate of the plan. Even if it does get built in the future the business case won't change - it will still cost a huge amount to build, likely won't come close to meeting its operating cost needs much less recover the costs to build it, and ridership projections are being set with facepalm level optimism that doesn't seem warranted. It would be one thing if CA went into this truthfully saying "we know this will be a money pit that will require eternal subsidies but we're building it anyway because it furthers our political beliefs about climate change and the like" but they're not really doing that.
Economic dividends don't buy tickets. We seem to be talking about 2 different things, I'm talking about system operating, construction, and ongoing capital costs and you're talking about larger societal benefits including potential increased non-railroad economic activity or less "carbon emissions". For example NYC's MTA loses about $6b/year and that's an entirely separate consideration from whether NYC as a whole benefits economically.
https://medium.com/@johnnyknocke/th...-dollars-a-year-and-nobody-cares-d0d23093b2d8
How much road cost is eliminated by MTA?Economic dividends don't buy tickets. We seem to be talking about 2 different things, I'm talking about system operating, construction, and ongoing capital costs and you're talking about larger societal benefits including potential increased non-railroad economic activity or less "carbon emissions". For example NYC's MTA loses about $6b/year and that's an entirely separate consideration from whether NYC as a whole benefits economically.
https://medium.com/@johnnyknocke/th...-dollars-a-year-and-nobody-cares-d0d23093b2d8
You don't look at it in a vacuum, you compare the opportunity costs of HSR versus other options. Perhaps building additional airports creates just as much economic benefit at half the construction costs and runs at an operating profit whereas HSR would have operating losses of $5b annually (I'm obviously making up numbers). In that scenario it's a very valid question whether there actually is a business case for HSR. Just having the ability to capture some non-zero market share isn't a business case, it has to offer at least some USF (unique selling feature) over competitors and if it's not cost then something else has to be in play (saying "I think trains are a more sophisticated way to travel than plane" isn't really a business case).
When exactly did I-5 finish paying for itself? Or LAX for that matter?
You mean the Governator? I recall that there was an electrical grid disaster with rolling blackouts under Gray Davis and they had a recall election or something.
[edit]
Oops. Didn't realize this post was from January LAST year.
When exactly did I-5 finish paying for itself? Or LAX for that matter?
We've collectively decided to not charge tolls on most of the interstate system whereas HSR is not intended be ridden for free. If you charged tolls on I-5 like HSR would charge for tickets it probably would pay for itself many, many times over. I-5 is also part of a 48k nationwide road system (again completely unlike CA HSR) and there's a much stronger business case, customer demand rationale, and pretty much everything else is better for I-5 than HSR. Plus I-5 already has the benefit of actually existing and not competing against HSR which is the exact opposite situation for HSR.
The question here is not 'should we build the I-5 or should we build high speed rail' so that's irrelevant. His point was that we subsidize infrastructure everywhere precisely because the point isn't to make a profit. So pointing out subsidies is pointless unless you can show that the construction is a net economic loss. Can you?
You don't get tired of making these doomsday predictions about California, and them not coming true?LOLOLLLLOOLOO
Catch my breath...
LOLOLOLLOLOLL
This is what happens when democrats are in control, tax and spend, and spend, and spend.....
It is just a matter of time before California files for bankruptcy.
That is what happens when we give out factories and technology away.
We were warned about this decades ago, but people did not listen.
Just had to have that special election, so that only the special person would get elected, cause that's how special elections usually work. I lived in Anaheim through that political farce. More like a coupe.Uh, did you know that was actually caused by Enron primarily (and other private energy firms), intentionally sabotaging the grid as an extortion tactic against legislators and gaming the market pricing, right? I believe that they started doing this a few years before their broad financial crimes came to light, which eventually doomed them. ...I think this behavior is what lead to the increased scrutiny on their company, that lead to the more publicly-known Enron scandal. The evidence is all over their memos and emails: techs laughing among themselves as they literally flipped switches and watched sectors shut down, from night to night, artificially creating supply issues that never existed, to impact demand and prices. That--or the documents recovered during the primary investigation are what revealed their culpability in all of it.
This is actually what happened. And yes, the governor was blamed, and it never had shit-all to do with him or anyone else in the CA legislator. ...so, care to rethink your perspective on this situation? (I know that the general public isn't aware of this fact, but it's the truth).
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/business/enron-forced-up-california-prices-documents-show.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/us/tapes-show-enron-arranged-plant-shutdown.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/feb/05/enron.usnews
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/enron-caused-california-blackouts-traders-say
Interesting. My recollection may be wrong. I thought Enron went down many years before the recall election.Uh, did you know that was actually caused by Enron primarily (and other private energy firms), intentionally sabotaging the grid as an extortion tactic against legislators and gaming the market pricing, right? I believe that they started doing this a few years before their broad financial crimes came to light, which eventually doomed them. ...I think this behavior is what lead to the increased scrutiny on their company, that lead to the more publicly-known Enron scandal. The evidence is all over their memos and emails: techs laughing among themselves as they literally flipped switches and watched sectors shut down, from night to night, artificially creating supply issues that never existed, to impact demand and prices. That--or the documents recovered during the primary investigation are what revealed their culpability in all of it.
This is actually what happened. And yes, the governor was blamed, and it never had shit-all to do with him or anyone else in the CA legislator. ...so, care to rethink your perspective on this situation? (I know that the general public isn't aware of this fact, but it's the truth).
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/business/enron-forced-up-california-prices-documents-show.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/us/tapes-show-enron-arranged-plant-shutdown.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/feb/05/enron.usnews
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/enron-caused-california-blackouts-traders-say
Interesting. My recollection may be wrong. I thought Enron went down many years before the recall election.
The simple reality is that no one has any idea much the HSR will cost. Every year the estimate goes up dramatically. The finial bill could very well be over two hundred billion dollars. The operating costs will be another enormous burden as well. The last estimate I saw said 80% tax payer supported, and it's going to have to compete with air travel. All of this in a state that's losing population.Yes, I think people can reasonably argue that the implementation they went with was bad, but the idea that high speed rail wouldn't be economically viable between the bay area and southern california is just comically wrong on its face.
EDIT: Also, the purpose of infrastructure is not to make money, it's to promote economic growth, etc. You never hear people say we shouldn't build a road because it will require a subsidy from the state every year for upkeep.
The burden of proof should be on the rail proponents. This is a hundred billion dollar project, that will probably end up being twice that amount, with 80% percent of it's operating costs coming from tax dollars. I want to know how the folks that will pay for it benefit from it, and exactly how much it will cost over the next twenty years.The question here is not 'should we build the I-5 or should we build high speed rail' so that's irrelevant. His point was that we subsidize infrastructure everywhere precisely because the point isn't to make a profit. So pointing out subsidies is pointless unless you can show that the construction is a net economic loss. Can you?
The simple reality is that no one has any idea much the HSR will cost. Every year the estimate goes up dramatically. The finial bill could very well be over two hundred billion dollars. The operating costs will be another enormous burden as well. The last estimate I saw said 80% tax payer supported, and it's going to have to compete with air travel. All of this in a state that's losing population.
The burden of proof should be on the rail proponents. This is a hundred billion dollar project, that will probably end up being twice that amount, with 80% percent of it's operating costs coming from tax dollars. I want to know how the folks that will pay for it benefit from it, and exactly how much it will cost over the next twenty years.
The sad reality is that no one can actually supply those numbers, as no one has any real idea of what it will cost to acquire the land and build it. We do know beyond any reasonable doubt that whatever estimate we're given will be far less than the actual cost.
FYI. I spent several years in government contracting here in CA, I never once saw a project come in at the estimated cost. Not one single time.
Uhmm, California's population is increasing, not decreasing.
There are literally studies that do exactly this already there about this project?