California High Speed Rail Thread

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Why not both?

Why not both? Because when dealing with tax money(money extracted from peoples paychecks) it is wise to pick projects to have the biggest impact and serve the most people or the most people who need serving the most(poor and middle class people) This rail line in California is not for the poor or middle class.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Why not both? Because when dealing with tax money(money extracted from peoples paychecks) it is wise to pick projects to have the biggest impact and serve the most people or the most people who need serving the most(poor and middle class people) This rail line in California is not for the poor or middle class.

Source?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Source?

http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...510-story.html

First off, the numbers keep on changing, so who knows what it will be in a decade(allowing for inflation, of course).

Second, a family of four is going to pay nearly 400$ at the most recent price. They could drive in a sedan for a about 25% that cost. *edit* or 800 for a round trip. And actually, from my Google map directions, and basing a cars MPG at 28 and gas at 4 dollars a gallon, you are looking at around $110 dollars round trip. So that family will save about $650 by driving. Most middle class and poor folks will be driving*

Third, how many low wage workers are traveling between the Bay Area and LA? My guess would be, and locals help me out, most people of lower or mid means in LA or the Bay area typically don't travel between the two cities. I am sure the wealthy are much more likely to do so.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...510-story.html

First off, the numbers keep on changing, so who knows what it will be in a decade(allowing for inflation, of course).

Second, a family of four is going to pay nearly 400$ at the most recent price. They could drive in a sedan for a about 25% that cost.

Third, how many low wage workers are traveling between the Bay Area and LA? My guess would be, and locals help me out, most people of lower or mid means in LA or the Bay area typically don't travel between the two cities. I am sure the wealthy are much more likely to do so.

Are you aware that the train has stops between LA and SF?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Are you aware that the train has stops between LA and SF?

Yes. But this train isn't being built to get people from downtown LA to Bakersfield. The big selling point is that you can get to the largest two metros in the state. And again, I believe a family will still be driving to those cities, as my edited previous post kind of shows why.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yes. But this train isn't being built to get people from downtown LA to Bakersfield. The big selling point is that you can get to the largest two metros in the state. And again, I believe a family will still be driving to those cities, as my edited previous post kind of shows why.

...from the Central Valley where housing is cheap yet jobs are sparse.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

...from the Central Valley where housing is cheap yet jobs are sparse.

How much would a ticket from say Stockton to San Francisco cost? Again, lower and middle class people come into the equation. If you have to spend $50 round trip to get to work everyday, equaling out to $1000 a month, what middle class person is gonna bite that bullet, or what low income person can?

Making 15 an hour wont do it. You would be spending nearly half your income just to get to work, never mind the fact you live in an area where a car is necessary for daily living, so tack on another 500-700 for a car payment, insurance, gas, taxes etc. Literally 60% of your income will go to transport before you even begin to pay rent.

This daily commute just isn't gonna happen.

You could tack on another 1,000 for rent, ditch the car saving another 700 dollars and now be able to afford a place for 1,700 more than you could in Stockton.

[pizzaguy]

Subsidies (both public and private) and monthly passes can cover that.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Subsidies (both public and private) and monthly passes can cover that.

Are you talking about if you work for the state or business and they provide you a subsidy or....

"Fares will be one of the most important factors in the decisions that millions of travelers will make when choosing to fly, drive or ride the bullet train. And they are central to revenue calculations for a system that by state law must operate without a taxpayer subsidy."

Is this still correct? The tax payers of California were promised they wouldn't have provide a subsidy for this, correct or not, when they voted for this?

If the answer is correct, then it is typical government and why people don't vote for this stuff. Cost overruns in the 10s of billions...and then *surprise*, the tax payers(poor to middle to rich) will be paying taxes for a train they never use.

[Eightball]

@Jtownman why are you not counting wear and tear on your car in your calculations? Parking fees when you arrive? Tolls? etc

But yes, if you have four people traveling at the same time, it will almost always be more economical to drive than to fly or take the train. Not everybody is primarily concerned with a small price differential anyways and that is not their primary market. Nor does everyone own a vehicle, either.

[Sun Belt]

HSR LA - SF will be as expensive as a no frills airline ticket -- which is to say it won't be for long distance commuters, but rather business travelers between SF to LA and those on leisure trips.

Those that commute via HSR will likely do so from Central Valley sprawlies to The Bay that can no longer afford the CoL in The Bay and perhaps Bakersfield to LA.

Sounds like a nightmare of a commute but some will do it because they have no other choice.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Eightball

@Jtownman why are you not counting wear and tear on your car in your calculations? Parking fees when you arrive? Tolls? etc

But yes, if you have four people traveling at the same time, it will almost always be more economical to drive than to fly or take the train. Not everybody is primarily concerned with a small price differential anyways and that is not their primary market. Nor does everyone own a vehicle, either.

I'll use my car: 2016 Jetta
250.00 payment
120 gas
zero tolls for me
50 a month to park at my apartment, zero for work
100 insurance
75 a month for maintenance(ive actually only changed the oil once in the last 9 months, so its a lot less, but averaging out because stuff happens)

595. The example I used was 700, so I think I accounted decently well for extra cost.

True, but that was kind of my point all along. This train isn't for your everyday Californian. Its for business people and tourist. This massive amount of money could have been spent a lot better locally to actually impact peoples lives. Not saying the project has zero use, but I think the taxpayers of California aren't getting as much as they could.

People who don't own a vehicle, will they be traveling much using this? I don't know. My guess is not. They either are really poor, and probably don't have the extra income to even travel( I know on this site full of folks who travel all around the world might not know a sizable portion of this country are people who really never leave their local area), or they choose not to have a car, which is probably like some urbanist on here that could fly just as well or take the train. So once again it looks like the taxpayers are subsidizing the rich and better-off.

[Eightball]

No I meant if you drive up to SF and stay in the city unless you are extremely lucky you will pay 20 to 75 or more a day in parking (or parking tickets). That's also not how depreciation on a vehicle works, but whatevs.

Most importantly, you missed Pedestrian's post about the lack of capacity at SF and LA area airports

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It seemed to me a massive argument for HSR because SFO is never going to have a new runway: Filling the Bay will always be a non-starter. If anything like 50% of the SFO passenger traffic--call it 25%--could be shifted to rail, there would be no need for expansion (meanwhile, for a time at least, recession accomplished the same goal).

Due to the fact that runways close to the urban centers of both SF and LA are at close to capacity and can't practically be expanded, I am confident HSR (or Hyperloop or some alternative to flying in fixed wing airplanes) will happen and if we do it later rather than sooner it will cost more.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Eightball

No I meant if you drive up to SF and stay in the city unless you are extremely lucky you will pay 20 to 75 or more a day in parking (or parking tickets). That's also not how depreciation on a vehicle works, but whatevs.

Most importantly, you missed Pedestrian's post about the lack of capacity at SF and LA area airports

Poor and lower class people aren't paying 400-1500 a month to park today. A worker making 10 an hour could barely even pay their parking bill every month.

My only point is this is not for the poor and the lower middle class. So this money does not help those that need it most. That. Is. All.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Poor and lower class people aren't paying 400-1500 a month to park today. A worker making 10 an hour could barely even pay their parking bill every month.

My only point is this is not for the poor and the lower middle class. So this money does not help those that need it most. That. Is. All.

Why must every government subsidized service be aimed only for the poor?
The government shouldn't be the largest charity organization, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. Let the Red Cross, United Way, and Religious Organizations fill that void.
Income redistribution shouldn't be the government's primary mission. It is not and should never be Robin Hood and his merry band or thieves.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why must every government subsidized service be aimed only for the poor?
The government shouldn't be the largest charity organization, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. Let the Red Cross, United Way, and Religious Organizations fill that void.
Income redistribution shouldn't be the government's primary mission. It is not and should never be Robin Hood and his merry band or thieves.

Thankfully people like you are a very very small minority.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Thankfully people like you are a very very small minority.

Note I included "only" for the poor. I strongly disagree with the very, very small minority statement. Government should provide services to everyone, rich and poor alike. And I suggest that is the sentiment of the very, very, vast majority.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why must every government subsidized service be aimed only for the poor?

Exactly! We are talking about California, which is one of the world's wealthiest economies. The state already spends a ton of money working to lift the poorest out of poverty. Why can't we also have nice things?

And jtown i don't understand your point. We were having a discussion about a hypothetical family from LA going to SF for a vacation, or a business trip or what have you. Where will they park their when they are visiting SF? What I quoted are realistic per day prices to park their car there. Ask any of the SF posters.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why must every government subsidized service be aimed only for the poor?
The government shouldn't be the largest charity organization, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. Let the Red Cross, United Way, and Religious Organizations fill that void.
Income redistribution shouldn't be the government's primary mission. It is not and should never be Robin Hood and his merry band or thieves.

I don't personally think that. It seems a large portion of this country goes nuts though if plans aren't specifically aimed to those less well off though.

I totally agree, but I would bet the people of California do not agree with you.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Exactly! We are talking about California, which is one of the world's wealthiest economies. The state already spends a ton of money working to lift the poorest out of poverty. Why can't we also have nice things?

And jtown i don't understand your point. We were having a discussion about a hypothetical family from LA going to SF for a vacation, or a business trip or what have you. Where will they park their when they are visiting SF? What I quoted are realistic per day prices to park their car there. Ask any of the SF posters.

I think there is quite a disconnect. A family of little means aren't visiting each city for vacation, first off. Secondly, if they do visit the other cities(la/sf) they are not staying in areas that cost that much to park. They are probably staying with family or out in the burbs where parking is free.

I visit NYC quite often. I never stay in the city as I don't like to spend 30-45 a day to park. I stay in the burbs and take the train into the city. Poor and middle class people like me make these types of decisions a lot of people on here simply do not even have to think about.